Building from theBest of Tucson

S O N O R A N I N S T I T U T E

COVER PHOTOGRAPHS:

FRONT: Yellow Home on Meyer Avenue, ©Josh Schachter/Sonoran Institute; Saguaro, ©Josh Schachter/Sonoran Institute; Trolley, ©Josh Schachter/Sonoran Institute; Mural, ©Josh Schachter/Sonoran Institute;©Josh Schachter/Sonoran Institute; Coronado Hotel Sign, ©Gordon Simmons/Sonoran Institute

BACK: Downtown Storefront, ©Josh Schachter/Sonoran Institute; Shadows on Home on Meyer Avenue, ©Josh Schachter/Sonoran Institute; Cyclist along Rillito Park, ©Josh Schachter/Sonoran Institute; Dove, ©Josh Schachter/Sonoran Institute; Coronado Hotel Residents, ©Josh Schachter/Sonoran Institute

ContentsPreface ................................................................................................................................................vAcknowledgments ............................................................................................................................viiIntroduction ........................................................................................................................................1A Brief History of Development in the Tucson Basin ......................................................................3

The Current Challenge ................................................................................................................3Trends in Growth Management and Land Development ............................................................6

Best Practices ....................................................................................................................................11Historical/Cultural ......................................................................................................................11Social..........................................................................................................................................12Functional ..................................................................................................................................12Physical ......................................................................................................................................13Economic ..................................................................................................................................15

Case Studies ......................................................................................................................................17Adobes del Bosque ....................................................................................................................20Milagro ......................................................................................................................................22Coyote Creek ............................................................................................................................24Fairfield Sunrise ..........................................................................................................................26Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum Restaurant ..............................................................................28Pima Community College Desert Vista Campus ........................................................................30Golf Links Municipal Center ......................................................................................................32The Nature Conservancy Corporate Office ................................................................................346th & 6th Warehouses ..............................................................................................................36Posadas Sentinel ........................................................................................................................38Coronado Hotel ........................................................................................................................40Armory Park del Sol ..................................................................................................................42Meyer Avenue Project ................................................................................................................44The Presidio................................................................................................................................46Sonora Cohousing ....................................................................................................................48North Mountain Park ................................................................................................................50Civano........................................................................................................................................52Main Gate Center ......................................................................................................................54Julian Drew Complex ................................................................................................................56What We Learned ......................................................................................................................59

Policy Considerations ......................................................................................................................61Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................65Glossary of Terms ............................................................................................................................67Bibliography......................................................................................................................................71

Bui

ldin

gfr

om t

he

BE

ST

ofT

UC

SO

N

©Ba

lfour

Wal

ker

Preface

– v –

As one of the oldest communities in the AmericanSouthwest, Tucson has a long and proud architecturalhistory. We take pride in our unique Sonoran and territorial style, from San Xavier del Bac and ournumerous historic districts to the Old Main Building of the University of Arizona. Our community hasgrown tremendously since the 1950s, and much ofthe resulting development lacks a sense of history, culture, and connection with the desert environment.It is not difficult to see; most of us can easily point torecent construction that we believe is not appropriatefor our desert community. The challenge lies not in identifying what doesn’t

work, but in defining what satisfies our broader civic aspirations and fits in our desert environs. In Building from the Best of Tucson, we joined with twenty-two othercommunity leaders to try and do just that. This report celebrates new residential and commercial developmentthat embodies those qualities that we would like to seeemulated and even improved upon in future development.It seeks a higher commitment to the best that Tucson offers as a community, and an elevation of standards inlocal development.

In the near future, residents of the greater Tucsonbasin will have a number of opportunities to be citizenplanners. This November, Tucsonans will be asked toapprove the city’s general plan, which will guide futuredevelopment. The following year, local residents likely willvote on issues related to the Sonoran Desert ConservationPlan. Other local jurisdictions also are busy working on new plans that will help them chart new directions fordevelopment.

With the release of Building from the Best of Tucson, wehope to provide an impetus to discuss those characteristicsthat make our community a unique place to live, andencourage a higher level of quality development in Tucson.By developing consensus among governing bodies, thedevelopment industry, and local residents, our communitycan craft solutions and policies that assure Tucson providesa superior living environment for its citizens, makes moreefficient use of our finite resources, and preserves our cultural heritage.

Th

e C

HA

LL

EN

GE

Betsy Bolding Tom DoucetteTucson Electric Power Doucette Homes, Inc.

©Jo

sh S

chac

hter

©Jo

sh S

chac

hter

/Son

oran

Inst

itute

– vii –

AcknowledgmentsBuilding from the Best of Tucson is a community

initiative. It is dedicated to stimulating improvementin the quality of development, both residential andcommercial, in eastern Pima County. This projectdraws from previous community efforts, includingthe City of Tucson’s Livable Tucson program, thathave sought to define a vision for how we shouldprosper in the future as a community. We hope toimprove the quality of development by:• Engaging the general public in a discussion of

what constitutes quality development in our community

• Celebrating examples of high quality development• Providing elected and appointed local officials

with policy recommendations that will encouragehigher quality in future development

• Helping architects, builders, developers, andfinancing institutions to improve the quality of development projects with which they are affiliated

Our thanks to the staff at Entranco for facilitatingthis community effort and conducting the research for this report. We also extend our appreciation to thefollowing people for providing their expertise and

counsel at various stages of the report’s development:Michael Whitchurch, University of Arizona student; Frank Cassidy, Esq., land-use attorney; Bill Vasko,Planning Director, City of Tucson; John Jones, Rio NuevoDevelopment, City of Tucson; and Jim Mazzocco,Planning Official, Development Services Department,Pima County.

We are also grateful to Erin Murphy, Theresa ReindlBingham, Gordon Simmons, and Gordie Hixon for theirinvaluable contributions to the creation of this report.Finally, we would like to extend a special thanks to Lara Schmit, who was responsible for coordinating thetalented people involved in the report’s design and publication, and Josh Schachter, whose photographshelp convey the best that development in Tucson has to offer.

Any omissions or errors in this report are the responsibility of the Sonoran Institute. Funding for this report was provided by the Sonoran Institutethrough the generous support of the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.

Luther Propst and John Shepard Sonoran Institute

ADVISORY TEAMGuiding this effort is an advisory team

of twenty-four community leaders repre-senting diverse interests and perspectives,including environmentalists, developers,neighborhood activists, public health specialists, members of the business com-munity, and local government officials:

Dante Archangeli, Milestone HomesPeter Backus, PB TradingBetsy Bolding, Tucson Electric PowerCarolyn Campbell, Coalition for

Sonoran Desert ProtectionBen Changkakoti, Pima CountyJoan Donnelly, Tohono Chul ParkTom Doucette, Doucette Homes, Inc.David Eisenberg and Anthony Novelli,

Development Center for Appropriate Technology

Diana Freshwater, Arizona Open Land Trust Diana Hadley, Arizona State MuseumLuis Ibarra, Ibarra/Rosano Design ArchitectsYolanda D. Herrera La Fond,

Sunnyside Neighborhood AssociationJohn Laswick, City of TucsonMolly McKasson, Former Tucson City

CouncilpersonMike Munday, Desert Rain Research

& CommunicationGordon Packard, CitizenDavid Peachin, Peachin & Peto CPA’s Ltd.Luther Propst, Sonoran InstituteBill Shaw, Ph.D., University of Arizona

School of Renewable Natural Resources Lisa Stage, Women for Sustainable

TechnologiesRobert Suarez, RS EngineeringBryan Williams, Environment, Behavior

and Risk Research Lab, Arizona Prevention Center

Michael Zimet, Vanguard Companies

(Note: Affiliations are for identification purposes only.)

Com

mun

ity

INIT

IAT

IVE

©G

ordo

n Si

mm

ons/

Sono

ran

Inst

itute

– 1 –

IntroductionTucson has been one of the fastest growing

metropolitan areas in the United States for the last thirty years. Official projections indicate that this growth will continue unabated in the decades to come, spurred by climate, natural desert beauty, and an overall quality of life that few other areas can match.

Most of us acknowledge that Tucson would not be the city it is if it were not for the Sonoran Desert,but this prompts the question: Can Tucson continue to prosper as an urban desert community withoutcompromising the very assets that make it a magnetfor growth?Historically, development in the Tucson area has

proceeded with little consideration of limiting growth and with few acknowledgments of the cumulative impactof development. The consequences of this unrestrainedexpansion are evident in our air quality, increasing trafficcongestion, continuing groundwater depletion, and disap-pearing desert. To many, these are profound indicationsthat a change in development patterns is necessary.

The good news is that a number of promising effortsare underway to preserve and restore what remains of ourSonoran Desert heritage. Pima County’s Sonoran DesertConservation Plan is the most visible of these. Appropriately,these efforts focus on protecting open space, wildlife habi-tat, and a wide range of cultural resources from the impactsof unplanned growth.

We do not have a compelling vision of how we shoulddevelop as a desert community. Many of us can point toresidential projects, shopping malls, and office buildingsthat detract from our desert surroundings. The more diffi-cult challenge lies in defining a positive image of futuredevelopment so that the places where we live, work, shop,and play reflect our common aspirations for a thrivingdesert community.

Building from the Best of Tucson serves as a practicalguide for residents, developers, builders, local officials, andconcerned citizens who wish to elevate the quality of pro-posed development projects. It offers guidelines or “bestdevelopment practices” that can contribute to a more livable, prosperous community. These are practical recom-mendations underscored with profiles of local developmentprojects. The report concludes with a discussion of the policy changes necessary to promote the highest quality in new development.

The Sonoran Institute will follow the release of thisreport with community presentations (a slide show and lessformal presentations) that will summarize our findings andhopefully elicit suggestions on what we as a communitycan do to improve the quality of local development. Wealso are committed to organizing additional events that willhelp publicize quality development in our community.

We welcome your suggestions and comments, as well as any ideas on how we can promote higher quality development in our community. Please forward these to:

Building from the Best of Tucsonc/o Sonoran Institute7650 E. Broadway, Suite 203Tucson, AZ 85710(520) 290-0828sonoran@sonoran.org

To download a copy of this report,please visit our website at www.sonoran.org.

Mag

net

for

GR

OW

TH

©Jo

sh S

chac

hter

/Son

oran

Inst

itute

Terms that may be unfamiliar to the general reader have been highlighted and listed in the glossary.

Cou

rtesy

Mar

shal

l Fou

ndat

ion

– 3 –

Tucson is one of the longest continuously inhabit-ed communities in North America. The ancestors ofthe Tohono O’odham settled here permanently atleast three thousand years ago. In the 1900s, develop-ment in Tucson—like that in many western U.S.cities—was a product of our nation’s westward expansion, driven by cheap and abundant land. Theexpansion of railroad lines, especially the SouthernPacific and the Santa Fe, and the introduction of theautomobile pushed Tucson’s population over twentythousand following World War I. The city expandedonce again during World War II as Davis-MonthanMunicipal Airfield became a military airbase.

Most of the early growth in Tucson spread east-ward, taking advantage of easily developed valley landoffering views of the Catalina Mountains. Once develop-ment came up against publicly owned lands, it changeddirection, heading northwest of the city. Through the1990s and into this century, development has continued to follow a similar pattern, extending into areas beyond the metropolitan fringe where land remains cheap andaccessible and homes on large lots are relatively affordable.

THE CURRENT CHALLENGE

Pima County is Arizona’s second most populous county. Current population is estimated at 843,746, most of which is concentrated in the eastern portion. Since 1990, Pima County has grown by more than 26 percent. The county projects annual population growthrates of about 2 percent through 2020, which would addanother 416,000 new residents. This population surge hascontributed significantly to our local economy. In 1999alone, construction and related services generated nearlytwenty thousand new jobs in our community.

Growth has its negative impacts, as well. Each day inPima County, nearly twelve acres of the Sonoran Desert arelost to sprawling development. The decline in air quality,increased congestion, and draw-down of the water tablewithin the Tucson basin are cited as other consequences of growth.

These changes have generated a broad-ranging discussion in our community about preserving local character in the face of development, prompting local and state initiatives to more effectively manage growth.

A Brief Historyof Development in the Tucson Basin

Con

sequ

ence

s of

GR

OW

TH

©Jo

sh S

chac

hter

“As a fourth-generation Tucsonan,

I’ve seen how our community has

changed and I’m concerned about

the lack of vision for Tucson’s

future.”

Yolanda Herrera La Fond

– 4 –

Livable TucsonIn 1997, the City of Tucson initiated a community-

wide visioning effort to define a more prosperous, sustainable Tucson. Known as Livable Tucson, this grass-roots effort engaged local residents through a series ofworkshops on identifying specific community goals thatwould improve their quality of life. These goals are:

1. Better alternatives to automobile transportation 2. Engaged community and responsive government 3. Safe neighborhoods 4. Caring, healthy families and youth 5. Excellent public education 6. Infill and reinvestment, not urban sprawl 7. Abundant urban green space and recreation areas 8. Protected natural desert environment 9. Better paying jobs

10. Clean air and quality water 11. People-oriented neighborhoods 12. Respected historic and cultural resources 13. Quality job training 14. Reduced poverty and greater equality

of opportunity 15. Strong local businesses 16. Efficient use of natural resources 17. Successful downtown

City officials use these goals to set priorities for their$800 million annual budget and measure their progress inachieving a more livable community.

©Jo

sh S

chac

hter

/Son

oran

Inst

itute

©C

hris

Moo

ney

– 5 –

Sonoran Desert Conservation PlanRecognizing the impact of growth in our community,

the Pima County Board of Supervisors approved develop-ment of a Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan in October1998. The plan’s immediate goal is to protect a number offederally listed threatened and endangered species, but thecounty also seeks to mitigate the impacts of growth overthe long term by protecting a wide range of cultural andnatural resources. The plan does not fill the need for aneffective growth management policy that will guide futureland development activities.

The proposed plan has received preliminary supportfrom federal land management agencies, local environ-mentalists, ranchers, developers, and business leaders. Overthe next two years, the county will work with communityleaders; local, state, and federal governments; and otherinterested members of the public to develop specific ele-ments of the plan.

Statewide Growth Management MeasuresLast year the state legislature enacted Growing Smarter

Plus, adding new provisions to Arizona’s existing land-useframework that move Arizona considerably out of themainstream of American land-use law. Compared to otherstates’ growth management policies, Arizona’s newlyrevised statutes significantly constrain local governments’ability to implement growth management plans.

Two aspects are especially worth noting: 1) ExistingArizona law requires the consent of landowners prior to

any change in zoning that would devalue or restrict theirland. The constitutionality of this provision is currentlybeing challenged in court. 2) Arizona law prevents localjurisdictions from establishing development densities moresparse than one dwelling unit per acre without landownerconsent.

Since a ballot initiative requiring local jurisdictions to establish urban growth boundaries (Citizens’ GrowthManagement Initiative) was defeated in 2000, the debate in Arizona over managing growth will continue unabated.

©Ra

ndy

Pren

tice

– 6 –

Public polls indicate that a majority of the state’s voterswould like to see growth more effectively managed. Therapid pace of change in our community ensures that thisissue will remain on the “front burner” in the years tocome.

TRENDS IN GROWTH MANAGEMENTAND LAND DEVELOPMENT

Despite the fact that national trends in land develop-ment are beginning to influence local land use (mostnotably in master-planned communities, green buildingtechnologies, infill development, and regionally appropri-ate architecture and design), local growth managementtools and policies vary, depending on the specific chal-lenges that each community faces. It follows that definingwhat constitutes effective growth management can be asubjective exercise. However, there are some common ele-ments of effective growth management that are worthreviewing.

Growth ManagementGrowth management is an approach to planning that

seeks to influence the character of growth in order toachieve specific local objectives for land use. In rapidlygrowing areas, this generally involves balancing residential,commercial, and industrial development; protecting theenvironment; and delivering public services. Effectivegrowth management relies on government spending, taxa-tion, regulations, and incentives. Three elements are key to

“I believe the best chance for a constructive

outcome in the debate over growth is at the

local level. Public awareness about the impact

of development is high in Tucson, but there

needs to be more discussion about

possible solutions.”

John Laswick

©Jo

sh S

chac

hter

/Son

oran

Inst

itute

©Jo

sh S

chac

hter

/Son

oran

Inst

itute

– 7 –

the success of any growth management initiative: vision,flexibility, and ability to cut across jurisdictions.

Effective growth management is built around a clearvision of how a community wants to develop in the future.Too often, debate about growth shifts immediately to spe-cific policies—for example, the use of zoning or impactfees—without a clear sense of broader local aspirations ordesired outcomes. This focus is understandable given ourdesire to reduce the particular impacts of development, but without a forward-looking strategy, we make land-usedecisions in reaction to emerging problems instead ofanticipating these challenges.

Another key feature of effective growth managementis flexibility and a reliance on a wide range of policies andstrategies. While regulations are necessary to prevent theworst in development, they do not necessarily bring outthe best. Public finance tools and incentives also are neces-sary to encourage development that is of a higher qualitythan that demanded by the minimum standards. The mostcritical requirement is that local governments have theauthority to use diverse tools and approaches in addressingtheir growth management challenges.

Finally, for growth management to be effective, it mustcut across jurisdictions. As we are learning, the local impactsof growth transcend municipal or county boundaries.Realizing the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan’s land pro-tection goals alone will involve federal and state agenciesand several local governments. Regional planning also can help avoid the spillover effects that occur when one

community’s more rigorous land-use policies shift develop-ment to neighboring jurisdictions.

Master-Planned Communities“Master-planned community” is a general term for a

large-scale development project that involves a variety ofland uses (residential, commercial, recreational, etc.). SinceWorld War II, these planned communities have occurred onthe urban fringe, relied heavily on the automobile for trans-portation, and generally segregated residential neighbor-hoods from commercial or retail districts (what we havecome to call suburban development). Rancho Vistoso andRita Ranch are local examples of these types of master-planned communities. Tucson also includes resort com-munities like Loews’ Ventana, another type of plannedcommunity.

New UrbanismThe last decade has seen the emergence of master-

planned communities that reflect elements of traditionalurban neighborhoods. Often called neotraditional develop-ment or New Urbanism, this approach mixes residential andcommercial uses, provides for walkways and open spacethat encourage greater neighborhood interaction, and gen-erally reduces dependence on the automobile. This type ofdevelopment has generated media and public interestbecause it attempts foster a sense of community that manyfeel has been lost in conventional suburban development.Civano is a local example of this type of master-plannedcommunity.

©Jo

sh S

chac

hter

/Son

oran

Inst

itute

Green BuildingTucson is becoming internationally known for sustain-

able design and construction. These efforts demonstratehow more practical, affordable, and comfortable homes—better adapted to local conditions—can be designed andbuilt using a wide range of new green building technolo-gies and approaches.

At a minimum, green building includes such featuresas solar-powered heating systems; various kinds of high-insulation construction materials; nontoxic, natural and/orrecycled building materials; energy and water conservationtechniques; xeriscape landscaping; and permaculture.Ideally, green building integrates these features to createhomes and communities that are optimally suited to locallandscape and climate. While most of the local projectsthat feature green building technologies are relativelysmall-scale, there are a few larger development projectsthat are incorporating green building features, the mostprominent of which are Civano and Armory Park del Sol.

Infill DevelopmentAs the amount of land on the urban fringe shrinks

and the price of servicing suburban or rural developmentclimbs to prohibitive levels, vacant land and abandonedproperties within urban areas become increasingly attrac-tive for development. These infill projects are appealing to developers and local governments because they makeuse of existing infrastructure such as roads, utilities, and schools.

The size and scattered nature of undeveloped landparcels within the City of Tucson may limit the potential for

– 8 –

©Josh Schachter/Sonoran Institute

©Jo

sh S

chac

hter

/Son

oran

Inst

itute“As an incentive to produce an environmentally

sensitive development, providing additional

density is critical. People may think higher

densities are not desirable, but through good

planning they can produce higher-quality

development than a low-density plan.”

Peter Backus

– 9 –

infill development. There are few vacant lots of sufficientsize to accommodate larger subdivisions; most parcels areless than one-quarter acre. However, our aging housingstock and abandoned or underused commercial buildingshold tremendous potential for redevelopment.

Regionally Appropriate Architecture and Design

Across many centuries, the indigenous peoples of theAmerican Southwest developed a regional architecture andbuilding style well suited to the desert environment.Subsequent Spanish settlers incorporated many indigenouselements into their own Moorish building traditions, whichwere readily adaptable to the local climate and landscape.These features can be found in many residential and com-mercial buildings built through World War II. Since then, theincreasing dominance of suburban-style development hassevered our ties to local building traditions.

However, growing interest in environmentally sensitivedevelopment has in turn renewed interest in the traditionalarchitecture and design that is compatible with the desertenvironment. We can see some of these features in newerTucson development projects: clustered homes that makeefficient use of the land, public spaces that encourage interaction, homes sited to take advantage of the sun andprevailing breezes, and the use of building materials likeadobe that reduce energy consumption. These features are often combined with green building technologies thatpromote water conservation and energy efficiency.

..............................................................................

The trends discussed above bode well for future devel-opment in the Tucson basin. As noted, many are reflectedin some measure in recently constructed residential andcommercial projects. The challenge for our community is tocapitalize on these trends in a manner that improves theoverall quality of development in the years to come.

©Jo

sh S

chac

hter

/Son

oran

Inst

itute “The shift from building on open

land to infill development and

redevelopment is crucial to the future

of the community. The continued

success of developers is totally

dependent upon adequate planning

for this transition, which will become

obvious as we near the physical

limits to growth.”

Tony Novelli

©Jo

sh S

chac

hter

/Son

oran

Inst

itute

– 11 –

Best PracticesEarly in the Building from the Best of Tucson project,

the advisory team engaged in an extensive discussionabout the current quality of local development. Duringthe discussion, team members identified a number ofspecific concerns that they felt should be addressed infuture development. These included issues related to:• Preserving historical and cultural resources• Encouraging social interaction and a greater sense

of community• Promoting the design of buildings and communities,

and other functional aspects of development, thatare compatible with our desert environment

• Protecting the Sonoran Desert’s natural landscape• Ensuring the equitable distribution of costs and

benefits associated with development• Addressing required transportation issues

Team members also identified various developmentprojects that they thought had made or were making an effort to address these concerns.

Armed with this information, staff at Entranco beganresearching and evaluating promising local developmentsand reporting their findings to the team. Over forty pro-jects were reviewed. Assessing these projects helped theadvisory team arrive at a manageable number to profile inthis report. It also led team members to more specificallydefine “best development practices” that respond to theconcerns they had previously raised.

These best development practices should be consid-ered as guidelines; following these guidelines may lead tohigher-quality development. The guidelines will not applyin every situation, but they should be useful for residents,government officials, planners, developers, and builders asa set of criteria by which to judge development proposalsand determine whether they raise the quality of develop-ment in a meaningful way.

HISTORICAL/CULTURALThe Southwest’s Native American and Hispanic cul-

tures and traditions are our richest resource for understand-ing how we have adapted and endured as a desert com-munity. This legacy remains vital as we continue to learnfrom past practices how to live and build a sense of com-munity in the Sonoran Desert. It is therefore critical that wepreserve our unique historical and cultural heritage. Thefollowing best development practices can help us to do so:

• Restoring or creatively reusing historic buildings orlandmarks

• Preserving on-site cultural resources and educatingthe public as to their value

• Considering historical land uses and architecture onadjacent lands when planning for development

• Protecting public spaces, including plazas, court-yards, trails, or irrigation waterways

• Adapting traditional building practices so that they meet current development standards

Gui

deli

nes

for

DE

VE

LO

PM

EN

T

©Jo

sh S

chac

hter

/Son

oran

Inst

itute

– 12 –

SOCIALSince its early days, Tucson has exhibited a strong

sense of community, epitomized by its resilient barrioneighborhoods and numerous active neighborhood associations. Now that the city has evolved into a majormetropolitan area, we are challenged to maintain thissense of community. There are good examples of localprojects that are striving to meet this goal. Even so, we will have to promote development that builds communityby creating discrete neighborhoods with nearby shopping,recreational, and job opportunities.

The following best development practices can helpstimulate a greater sense of community:

• Clustering residential development around compactcommercial centers or districts

• Integrating well-designed affordable housing andmulti-family housing among single-family homes.

• Designing streets as narrowly as possible with smaller front yards

• Incorporating public spaces—including parks,libraries, and schools—within residential areas

• Providing access to public transit• Creating a safe, convenient, and attractive network

of trails and paths for pedestrians and cyclists

FUNCTIONALAs a desert community, we are blessed with an

abundance of sun and challenged by a scarcity of water.

©Josh Schachter/Sonoran Institute

©Jo

sh S

chac

hter

/Son

oran

Inst

itute

– 13 –

These defining features of our natural environment shouldguide us in how we design our homes and neighborhoods,from our choices of building materials to the infrastructurewe develop to support our growth. The good news is thatthere are new technologies and approaches that can helptake advantage of those resources that are abundant, whilemaking more efficient use of those resources that are not.

The following best development practices can help usbuild and grow in a manner that acknowledges theSonoran Desert’s riches and limits:

• Capitalizing on existing and emerging renewableenergy and water conservation technologies

• Using indigenous, energy-efficient building materials and techniques, including adobe and rammed-earth construction

• Building where there is existing infrastructure to minimize the additional costs associated with servicing new development

• Increasing densities around new and existing infrastructure to maximize our investment in public services

PHYSICALDevelopment in the Tucson basin should strive to

preserve, protect, and restore the unique features thatcomprise our Sonoran Desert environment. Riparianareas—the rivers, washes, and streams that weave through the basin—are particularly important to thedesert’s wildlife, as they serve as home and refuge for

©Jo

sh S

chac

hter

/Son

oran

Inst

itute “Promoting regionally appropriate

architecture is a worthy goal, but

we need to remember that this

architecture is part of deeper

cultural tradition. The ‘barrio’

isn’t just a building style. It’s

about families, neighborhoods,

and a sense of place.”

Diana Hadley

– 14 –

“It is critical that our

connections to the natural

world be represented in

our planning efforts.”

Tony Novelli

©Ra

ndy

Pren

tice

©Jo

sh S

chac

hter

/Son

oran

Inst

itute

– 15 –

many animals and as critical corridors for their movementthrough our urban areas. As we learn more about thefragility and diversity of life in the Sonoran Desert, we have come to appreciate and value the importance of pro-tecting the inextricably linked elements of our landscape.Integrating conservation into future development activitiesin all areas—from the ironwood forests to the desertfoothills—is essential, and the following best developmentpractices help us to do so:

• Considering the environmental impact on nearbyexisting or proposed land uses when planning fornew development

• Preserving natural open space, particularly riparianareas, and linking these to other natural open spaceon adjacent lands

• Restoring or enhancing natural open space that has been previously damaged by human activities

• Using native plants and xeriscape techniques forlandscaping

• Using water-harvesting techniques to collect rain-water for landscaping and recharging groundwater

• Designing with wildlife in mind, such as preservingurban washes as habitat and corridors

ECONOMICThe best practices described above are not without

benefit, but they also have costs, as do all parts of anydevelopment. Costs can be lessened or increased due to local government decision-making, which can make

implementing these best practices simple or difficult, anddue to consumer choices, which can add up to trends foror against using the best practices. However, beyond strictgovernment regulation and the influence of market trends,there are steps that can be taken by all parties—developers,builders, local jurisdictions, communities at large, home-owners—to encourage higher quality development in away that is financially viable, appropriate for the market,and affordable. The following best practices can help us to do so:

• Identifying emerging consumer preferences and mar-ket trends that support best development practices

• Educating financing institutions, local officials, andothers about the potential economic benefits of bestpractices, including presenting a comparison of initialcosts versus long-term savings

• Taking advantage of a wide range of governmentand private finance and assistance programs to realize as many best practices as possible

• Providing financial incentives and awards to en-courage all parties associated with development to implement best practices

• Ensuring that costs associated with best practices are equitably allocated, and linking these explicitly to specific benefits provided to the community atlarge or the individual homeowner

• Streamlining regulatory processes to reward innovation

“If we are going to encourage

developers and builders to

follow these ‘best practices,’

then we should also encourage

city and county officials to do

the same with their projects.”

Peter Backus

©Jo

sh S

chac

hter

/Son

oran

Inst

itute

– 17 –

Case StudiesThe projects profiled in the following pages

represent a wide range of the development found in our community. Each reflects one or more of thebest development practices previously discussed. Wehave grouped these case studies into five types ofdevelopment that will comprise much of our futuregrowth. These include:• Preservation & Open Space, which includes a

range of development activities that protect localnatural, historic, or cultural resources. Preservationrefers to projects that maintain the distinctive attributes of particular sites, including unique landscape features, historic buildings, or culturallandmarks. Open Space describes projects that pro-tect the Sonoran Desert for wildlife habitat, floodcontrol, trail access, or other public purposes.

• Appropriate Regional Architecture, which includesdevelopment activities that are responsive to the culture, climate, and landscape of the SonoranDesert region, incorporating design features, build-ing materials, or stylistic elements accordingly.

• Urban Redevelopment & Adaptive Reuse,which include projects in urban areas that have been economically depressed or stagnant—

either the building of new structures or, more often,the renovation of existing buildings and structures. Urban Redevelopment in which existing buildings and structures are rehabilitated for new uses is called Adaptive Reuse.

• Infill Development, which includes single-structure or large-scale development projects on vacant inner-city lots or suburban land parcels that are surroundedby existing development. Like much of UrbanRedevelopment, Infill Development projects rely on existing infrastructure.

• Mixed Use, which combines different land uses intoone project, as simple as a two-story structure withcommercial businesses on the ground floor and residential or office spaces on the second, or as complex as a large-scale project that intermingles residential areas with small-scale commercial or retail centers, or open space with public facilities.

While the case studies that follow have been groupedinto one of the five categories, we should underscore thatthese groupings are not clear-cut. Many of the projectsprofiled could be included in more than one of the cate-gories listed above.

Dev

elop

men

t P

RO

FIL

ES

©Jo

sh S

chac

hter

/Son

oran

Inst

itute

– 18 –

Ina Road

Orange Grove Road

Wetmore Road

Ft. Lowell Road

Anklam Road

Grant Road

Speedway Boulevard

Broadway Boulevard

22nd Street

Golf Links Road

Irvington Road

Drexel Road

Valencia Road

Swan

Roa

d

Cra

ycro

ft Ro

ad

Alve

rnon

Way

Cou

ntry

Clu

b Ro

ad

Cam

pbel

l Ave

nue

Park

Ave

nue

6th

Aven

ue

Inte

rsta

te 1

9

Hou

ghto

n Ro

ad

Har

rison

Roa

d

Interstate 10

Sunrise Drive

Old Spanish Trail

Ston

e Av

enue

Prince Road

River Road

5 8

4

151

2

6

37

16

14

17

Building from the Best of Tucson CASE STUDY LOCATION MAP

18

13

111912

10

9

Speedway Boulevard

Interstate 10

Broadway Boulevard

22nd Street

Congress Street

Ston

e Av

enue

6th

Aven

ue

Park

Ave

nue

Cam

pbel

l Ave

nue

6th Street

Case StudiesPRESERVATION & OPEN SPACE1. Adobes del Bosque2. Milagro3. Coyote Creek4. Fairfield Sunrise

APPROPRIATE REGIONALARCHITECTURE5. Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum

Restaurant6. Pima Community College Desert

Vista Campus7. Golf Links Municipal Center8. The Nature Conservancy

Corporate Office

URBAN REDEVELOPMENT& ADAPTIVE REUSE9. 6th & 6th Warehouses

10. Posadas Sentinel11. Coronado Hotel

INFILL DEVELOPMENT12. Armory Park del Sol13. Meyer Avenue Project14. The Presidio15. Sonora Cohousing16. North Mountain Park

MIXED USE17. Civano18. Main Gate Center19. Julian Drew Complex

MAP INSET

– 19 –

– 20 –

The developer of Adobes del Bosque, located near theRillito River in the historic Fort Lowell neighborhood, madeextensive and meticulous efforts to preserve a riparianmesquite bosque. These ecologically sensitive areas arebecoming less common in the Tucson basin as they areconverted to residential development and as groundwateris diverted to meet the needs of our growing population.

Adobes del Bosque’s developer sought to save asmuch of the site’s original vegetation as possible and madean additional commitment to replant disturbed areas withnative plants. At the time of the developer’s purchase ofthe land, a significant number of the bosque’s trees hadbeen cleared by previous owners or were dying due to thelowering water table. The developer preserved 30 percentof the site, which includes 60 percent of the historicbosque, under a conservation easement. As a result, 1,200 of the 1,400 original trees were saved.

Historical/CulturalHomes are designed to be compatible with Fort

Lowell’s historic architecture, a style that includes mostlystucco houses with walled courtyards, lush vegetation, and mesquite trees—an old Mexican hacienda feel. Thedevelopment reflects the historic character of the area’slandmarks, including the nearby San Pedro Chapel, designated a state and national historic landmark in 1982, and La Capillita, a tiny chapel in the mission revival style built by Mexican settlers in 1915.

Adobes del BosqueP R E S E R V A T I O N & O P E N S P A C E

D E V E L O P E R :

Adobes del Bosque, LLC

P L A N N E R : Planners Ink

E N G I N E E R :Greg Carlson Engineers(hydrology)Environmental EngineeringCorp. (civil)Presidio Engineering

S TAT U S :Construction ongoing; projected completion spring 2001

T Y P E :18-unit, single-family residential subdivision on 8.4 acres

North Craycroft Road and Fort Lowell Road

©G

ordo

n Si

mm

ons/

Sono

ran

Inst

itute

– 21 –

SocialThe developer worked closely with neighborhood

groups, including the Fort Lowell Planning Committee,which were generally supportive of the project. The devel-oper agreed to sell two parcels from the property to aneighboring school, which will build on one parcel and usethe other as a buffer between the development and theschool. A proposal to link Adobes del Bosque to the nearbyRillito River Linear Park via a nature walk was not complet-ed because the local neighborhood planning committeeraised concerns about privacy and crime.

FunctionalThe streets have inverted crowns that harvest rain-

water from homes and streets to irrigate neighborhoodtrees and plants. The concrete mix used on street curbslooks like gravel, minimizing visual impact.

PhysicalIn addition to placing 30 percent of the site under

a conservation easement, the developer also managed topreserve an additional 30 percent of the site’s vegetationby limiting the size and location of building lots. Additionalfunds were voluntarily committed by the developer forrevegetation.

EconomicAs with many development projects in environmentally

sensitive areas, Adobes del Bosque targets the higher endof the residential market. Homes are priced between

$300,000 and $400,000. The high quality of developmenthas spurred sales; only two homes have yet to sell.

IssuesSome of the project’s innovative elements required

additional consultations with city staff. The rainwater harvesting system, for example, uses ponds for collectingthe water, which the city categorized as a flood plain. Thisrequired each house to be elevated on a pad, which wouldnormally mean removing more of the site’s original vegeta-tion than the developer wanted to remove. However,builders found a method for installing each pad with minimal disturbance to vegetation.

Lessons LearnedThe developer’s experience underscores the need for

a development review process that encourages innova-tion, especially where water conservation is involved. AsAdobes del Bosque and other case studies illustrate, thereare numerous promising technologies that can help usmake better use of our water resources.

Working with area neighborhoods during the planningprocess will ultimately create positive relationships.

©Jo

sh S

chac

hter

/Son

oran

Inst

itute

– 22 –

Milagro, nestled in the Tucson Mountains about 12minutes from downtown, describes itself as “a communityin balance with nature.” This development clusters itshomes in order to preserve the natural desert, maintainingapproximately three-quarters of the property as openspace—an exceptional commitment to protecting ourdesert environment.

As a cohousing development, Milagro seeks to foster asense of community by incorporating walkways connectingeach home, a common house for social events, and a community garden, orchard, and pool. The project also will develop wetlands that will be used to treat wastewateron site. Other environmental features of the project includepermaculture techniques and native landscape design.

Historical/CulturalBegun in the late 1960s in Denmark, cohousing

projects are designed to promote a sense of communityand facilitate social interaction among residents. Typically, private dwellings include their own kitchens and living-dining rooms, but also provide extensive common facilities,including a large dining area and recreation facilities; child care is usually shared with the large group. Cohousingcommunities are designed and managed by the residents.

SocialMilagro’s clustered homes, walkways, and common

spaces encourage interaction and build a sense of commu-nity among homeowners. The community gardens and

MilagroP R E S E R V A T I O N & O P E N S P A C E

D E V E L O P E R : CEL Development, LLC(Community for EcologicalLiving)

E N V I R O N M E N TA LD E S I G N C O N S U LTA N T S :

Sustainable Design and DevelopmentPermaculture Consulting,Education & Design

A R C H I T E C T:Morton and Mackey

B U I L D E R : Ollanik Construction, Inc.

S TAT U S :Design completion in2000; project constructionto begin spring 2001

T Y P E :28-unit, single-familycohousing developmenton 43 acres

2920 North Goret Road

– 23 –

orchard are expected to provide a hundred pounds of edible produce every year for each resident.

FunctionalMilagro uses a wide range of building techniques

that are appropriate for our Sonoran Desert environment.Homes will include adobe walls, concrete floors, and galvanized steel roofs that help keep indoor temperatureswithin a comfortable range all year. Residences will be oriented to take advantage of passive solar heating, and solar collectors will provide homes with hot water.

PhysicalApproximately 62 percent of the site is preserved as

natural desert. Adding the wetlands, orchard, and otherlandscaped areas, the amount of open space on the property extends to more than 75 percent. Landscapingwill include native vegetation, while homegrown producewill rely on water harvesting systems that preclude usingany groundwater.

EconomicMilagro’s developer required the commitment of a

certain number of home buyers, above and beyond what is typical for more conventional residential projects, beforegoing forward with design and financing (due to the pro-ject’s unique design and community-building features).

IssuesA number of the project’s environmental features

did not comply with the city’s building and development

codes, which are geared toward conventional suburbandevelopment. Because these features deviated from exist-ing standards, they required applications for variances,delaying the approval process, generating additionalexpenses for the developer (and eventually the homebuyer), and increasing the project’s overall financial exposure. For example, Milagro’s attached units required a variance, which had to be renewed because the need tosecure commitments from homebuyers delayed the devel-opment’s final approval. In order to avoid amending theRegional Wastewater Treatment Plan, the developer wasinvolved in more than six months of consultations beforethe proposed wetlands was approved.

Lessons LearnedProject delays created a disincentive, and innovations

required additional costs for the developer. The developerestimates the project’s innovative features added 18months to the review process and $70,000 in additionalconsultant expenses.

– 24 –

Coyote Creek is located in the Rincon Mountainfoothills, adjacent to Saguaro National Park in eastern metropolitan Tucson. The site is near the Rincon Creek and surrounds Coyote Wash. It includes significant riparianareas that serve as wildlife corridors from the mountains tothe desert floor.

Coyote Creek is designed for nature lovers and horse-back riders. The project calls for setting aside 75 percent ofthe development as open space, either privately held or forcommon use. It includes community and equestrian cen-ters and a network of trails for hiking, biking, and horse-back riding. Coyote Wash and its tributaries link a variety of on-site trails amid the area’s gently rolling hills.

Each building seeks to capture the surrounding views ofthe upland Sonoran Desert landscape, while roadways andlots are situated so as not to compromise the distant viewsof the Rincon Mountains from outside the development.

Historical/CulturalCoyote Creek lies in the midst of a popular recreation

area: in addition to nearby Saguaro National Park, thefamous Arizona Trail, which links Mexico to Utah, is onlyone mile from the development. The developer has made a concerted effort to preserve access to trails used for yearsby Tucsonans and visitors to the Sonoran Desert.

SocialThe project’s equestrian center will offer residents a fully

staffed contemporary facility, complete with stables, work-out rings, and show arenas. Fifteen percent of the homesiteswill be permitted to have individual horse facilities.

FunctionalNo fences are permitted along the perimeter of any

lot. Streets, lots, and building envelopes were surveyed

Coyote CreekP R E S E R V A T I O N & O P E N S P A C E

D E V E L O P E R : PB Trading Company

S TAT U S :Platted in 1999; sale of lots currently in Phase I;ongoing construction

T Y P E :395-unit, single-familymaster-planned develop-ment on 1,000 acres withlots ranging from one to four acres

14901 East Old Spanish Trail

©Jo

sh S

chac

hter

/Son

oran

Inst

itute

©W

illiam

Les

ch

– 25 –

three times to preserve individual views. Variances weregranted for roadway widths, shoulders, and sidewalks tominimize impact on the desert. No building envelopes areallowed on ridges. Building envelopes may not be movedwithout the consent of the architectural committee andcomments from neighbors. There are specific rules regard-ing the treatment of roads, roofs, walls, and utilities.

PhysicalConditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&Rs) dic-

tate that future homeowners cannot develop areas outsideof the approved building envelopes within their lots, there-by preserving the desert landscape and scenic views. Whencombined with other areas that cannot be built on or havebeen set aside, these building lot restrictions leave three-quarters of the entire 1,000-acre property as open space.

EconomicThe project is currently in the initial stages of develop-

ment. Roads and model homes are the extent of construc-tion at this time. As with many development projects inenvironmentally sensitive areas, Coyote Creek targets thehigher end of the residential market. The lots are pricedbetween $90,000 and $170,000.

IssuesThe developer requested and received approval for a

higher-density development. According to the developer,increasing the density made it economically feasible to produce a more environmentally sensitive and appealingproject.

Lessons LearnedIncreasing density for certain projects may be

appropriate if the resulting benefits are clearly defined and consistent with the community’s broader aspirationsfor development.

©Jo

sh S

chac

hter

/Son

oran

Inst

itute

– 26 –

Developed in the mid-1970s, Fairfield Sunrise was oneof the first projects to take advantage of the Pima Countyland development code’s new cluster developmentoption. The property includes numerous exposed ridgesand steep, narrow canyons that thread down to the RillitoRiver. Within this sensitive landscape, the developergrouped homes on small building lots and designed narrow streets that help preserve open space and views of the city below.

Fairfield Sunrise ended up with considerably moreopen space than other one-acre subdivisions built duringthe 1970s. As a result, it succeeded in preserving theCatalina foothills’ needed wildlife corridors and drainageareas that presently allow coyotes, javelinas, mule deer, and Eastern cottontails to migrate between desert and mountains.

Historical/CulturalN/A.

SocialThe development has a number of homeowners’ asso-

ciations that place strict controls to help preserve cityscapeviews and maintain the appeal of the homesites. While theclustering design seeks to encourage neighborhood inter-action, houses are oriented to provide privacy for individualhomeowners. Neighborhood streets are dominated bydriveways, garage doors, and walkways to entry doors,which may limit interaction.

Fairfield SunriseP R E S E R V A T I O N & O P E N S P A C E

D E V E L O P E R : Fairfield Development, Inc.

L A N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T:

The Acacia Group

S TAT U S :Completed in late 1970s

T Y P E :Single-family residential cluster development on1,500–1,600 acres

Craycroft Road and Sunrise Drive

©G

ordo

n Si

mm

ons/

Sono

ran

Inst

itute

©G

ordo

n Si

mm

ons/

Sono

ran

Inst

itute

– 27 –

FunctionalSingle-stacked streets allow for staggered building

lots along hillsides. Homes include concrete-block duplexunits with patios and small gardens, as well as individualsingle-family residences. Portions of the project are on septic systems for waste disposal.

PhysicalFairfield Sunrise’s cluster housing, unlike more

conventional suburban development projects of the time,did not encroach on washes and other environmentallysensitive areas. Preserving wildlife corridors was anunplanned benefit.

EconomicWhen Fairfield Sunrise was built, land in the foothills

was relatively cheap. Because the project’s design reducedthe number of roads, overall infrastructure costs were keptlow. At the same time, city views turned out to be moremarketable than originally assumed. These factors com-bined to make Fairfield Sunrise a financial success. The proj-ect continues to appeal to homebuyers who are interestedin smaller-sized homes that are easy to maintain. Propertyvalues have increased steadily, and homes resell quickly.

IssuesCluster developments are not popular among the

high-end real estate markets that dominate the foothillsarea. In general, this market prefers one-acre homesites.Cluster developments often look like townhouse com-

plexes, which does not hold much market appeal, especially in rural areas. According to county staff, only five development projects have opted to use the clusterzoning approach in the past five years because of the lack of interest in the market.

Lessons LearnedWhile the use of the cluster zoning approach has

not been a viable option for many developers, it is goodthat the county has provided a range of options for thedevelopment community to choose from.

©Jo

sh S

chac

hter

/Son

oran

Inst

itute

– 28 –

The Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum Restaurant is an award-winning example of environmentally sensitivedesign that blends into the Sonoran Desert landscape. Thetwo-restaurant facility sits unobtrusively on the southwest-ern edge of the museum complex, located west of Tucsonon the border of Saguaro National Park. The restaurantprovides diners with expansive views of the surroundinguplands, Avra Valley, and the Baboquivari Mountains.

The clean and simple lines of the building married withthe appropriate use of native stone create elegant spacesboth inside and outside the building. Floor-to-ceiling win-dows and shaded patio areas provide numerous opportuni-ties for patrons to enjoy desert vistas.

Historical/CulturalN/A.

SocialThe restaurant’s setting, open interior, and intimate

outdoor dining areas make this a popular place for muse-um visitors to relax and enjoy the unique Sonoran Desertenvironment.

FunctionalStone for the exterior walls was salvaged from a

nearby elementary school. The heating/cooling systemallows temperatures to be adjusted in different parts of the restaurant. Exhaust air, averaging 85 degrees, is recycled during the summer for cooling outdoor patioareas. Wastewater from sources approved by the ArizonaDepartment of Environmental Quality (see “Issues”) and rainwater are recycled and used to flush toilets and irrigate plants.

Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum RestaurantA P P R O P R I A T E R E G I O N A L A R C H I T E C T U R E

A R C H I T E C T / B U I L D E R :Line and Space, LLC

E N G I N E E R S :Turner StructuralEngineering Co. (structural)GLHN Architects andEngineers (mechanical and electrical)Progressive Food Services(kitchen)

S TAT U S :Completed in 1994

T Y P E :20,000-square-feet museum restaurant andgift shop

2021 North Kinney Road

©H

enry

Tom

©Jo

sh S

chac

hter

– 29 –

PhysicalThe building was designed and built around existing

vegetation in order to minimize disruption of the site. Thestone wall design allows the structure to blend comfortablywith the surrounding environment.

EconomicThe restaurant cost $2.25 million to build—approxi-

mately $112 per square foot—which is comparable withother buildings of this type. No extraordinary expensesarose from the innovative design.

IssuesState officials at the Arizona Department of Environ-

mental Quality, concerned about health risks associatedwith the improper disposal of wastewater, did not approvethe proposed recycled wastewater system until it wasredesigned to their satisfaction.

Lessons LearnedWhen proposing to implement innovative recycled

wastewater projects, consulting with the Arizona Depart-ment of Environmental Quality in advance can help savetime and money. Regulatory agency staff should use theprecedent established by this project to streamline thereview and approval process for similar projects in the future.

©C

olby

Cam

pbel

l

– 30 –

Pima Community College’s Desert Vista Campus is an open and inviting educational campus at the site of aformer high-security computer equipment manufacturingplant. The project was designed to meet two specific goals:designing a visually appealing campus for the community,and meeting a high level of energy efficiency.

The campus includes two buildings, one new and one renovated. The new Plaza Building, which houses thelibrary among other things, is roofed with metal shingles;the exterior and the courtyard canopy are painted instrong earth colors. A sculpture will be installed at the front of the building in the future. The renovated PuebloBuilding houses offices, classrooms, labs, and the newbookstore and eatery. On October 6, 2000, officials formally dedicated the Plaza Building and held a celebration honoring the changes in the Pueblo Building. Historical/Cultural

A pit house was discovered beneath the parking areaduring construction. It dates back to 900–1300 A.D., whenthe Hohokam—the first residents of the Tucson basin—farmed along the Santa Cruz River. Little is known aboutthe Hohokam, who vanished long before the first Spanishexpeditions entered this region. The site has been pre-served and an interpretive station designed to educate the public on Hohokam culture and pit houses.

SocialWalls, structures, and other features of the former

high-security facility have been eliminated to create moreopen space for gatherings and encourage social interaction.

Pima Community College Desert Vista CampusA P P R O P R I A T E R E G I O N A L A R C H I T E C T U R E

A R C H I T E C T:Burns & Wald-HopkinsArchitects

B U I L D E R :Sundance Design andConstruction

E N G I N E E R S :MMLA, Inc. (civil)Turner StructuralEngineering Co. (structural)SMU MechanicalEngineering (mechanical)Monrad Engineering, Inc.(electrical)

L A N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T:

McGann & Associates

S TAT U S :Completed summer 2000

T Y P E :Educational facility on 51 acres

5901 South Calle Santa Cruz

©G

ordo

n Si

mm

ons/

Sono

ran

Inst

itute

©G

ordo

n Si

mm

ons/

Sono

ran

Inst

itute

– 31 –

FunctionalThe campus meets the stringent energy efficiency

standards of both the Environmental Protection Agencyand U.S. Green Building Council. Building materials usedincluded adobe, recycled cellulose wall insulation, high-performance insulating glass, and steel roofing. Where possible, builders incorporated recycled and biodegradablebuilding materials to minimize construction waste andmaintain indoor air quality.

PhysicalN/A.

EconomicFor the first three years of operation, Pima Community

College and the architect each will receive an equal portionof the money saved due to the project’s energy efficiency.The college also has allocated funds to underwrite futureenergy-efficient measures.

IssuesPima Community College is not subject to the county’s

development review process. The project is exempt fromlocal land development codes, but still must adhere tonational Uniform Building Codes.

Lessons LearnedThe government does not have to be the sole

provider of incentives; the developer and builder can structure these, as well. In this instance, Pima CommunityCollege perceived there was value in certain energy-efficient improvements that contributed to the project’soverall quality. It is too early to assess the return on theirinvestment.

©D

ave

Burn

s

– 32 –

The Golf Links Municipal Center reflects the city’sefforts to consolidate community services where appropri-ate, in this case by having a library and police substationshare space. The center’s contemporary design relies pri-marily on earth-toned materials to reflect typical deserthues.

This public project reflects a strong sustainability ethic.Dirt excavated from the site now forms a rammed-earthwall that shields the library’s west-facing windows. Recycledglass paves the walkway from the parking lot to the entryplaza. Rainwater from the parking lot and roofs flows toplanted areas. Metal canopies provide shade in key openareas between the two buildings.

Historical/CulturalN/A.

SocialThe library faces the main street; the police substation

is located behind the library and several layers of security.The facilities share an entry breezeway, meeting room, andrestroom facilities. The center’s master plan allows for thefuture addition of other city services.

FunctionalThe large, east-facing wall of the library is shielded

by a 16-foot overhang and solar-activated, electrically operated rolling shades.

Golf Links Municipal CenterA P P R O P R I A T E R E G I O N A L A R C H I T E C T U R E

A R C H I T E C T:Burns & Wald-HopkinsArchitects

B U I L D E R :Giles Construction, Inc.

E N G I N E E R S :MMLA, Inc. (civil)Turner StructuralEngineering Co. (structural)Adams and Associates(mechanical)Monrad Engineering, Inc.(electrical)

L A N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T:

Wheat Scharf Associates

S TAT U S :Completed in 1999

T Y P E :26,281-square-feet municipal branch libraryand police substation

Golf Links Road and Harrison Road

©D

ave

Burn

s

©D

ave

Burn

s

– 33 –

PhysicalThe library offers information about desert planting

and rainwater harvesting.

EconomicThe project cost approximately $3.7 million—approxi-

mately $140 per square foot—which is comparable withother facilities of this type. The city expects to generatesavings over time by consolidating multiple services on one site and using energy-efficient technologies.

IssuesConstruction of public buildings must go through a

competitive three-bid solicitation process. It is often difficultto secure three bids that respond to a project’s designrequirements. There may not be enough builders who arefamiliar with the building materials and/or who can man-age larger construction projects. Also, there may not beenough material available for large construction projects ofthis nature. It took considerable effort to find suppliers andcontractors who could handle the rammed-earth wall andrecycled glass pathway.

Lessons LearnedThe city procurement process for public buildings

should encourage and respond to innovative design. Thereis a need for training and education on the long-term sav-ings of energy-efficient designs and other innovations. Anynumber of entities—private, public, or nonprofit—can stepup to educate developers and builders. An increase in the

number of knowledgeable developers and builders can alsoincrease demand, ultimately reducing per-unit cost.

©Br

ett D

rury

– 34 –

The Nature Conservancy Corporate Office building,located on Fort Lowell Road between Mountain andCampbell Avenues, was designed to creatively and prag-matically reflect the organization’s commitment to theenvironment. The building wraps around an open court-yard, the focal point of the design. It incorporated an existing dance studio, small adobe residence, and circulargarden, as well as areas of undisturbed desert.

In addition to utilizing numerous energy-efficient technologies, the project includes a water-permeablepaving system in the parking area that allows more water to soak in and replenish groundwater. The paving systemalso reduces the amount of heat reflected from the ground(helped by the numerous nearby trees), thereby furtherreducing energy bills.

Historical/CulturalN/A.

SocialThe open design encourages social interaction. Over

forty volunteers from the University of Arizona’s environ-mental sciences and landscape architecture departmentsinstalled the natural rock paving system in the parking area.

FunctionalThe office building saves energy by using thermal

double-paned windows and fifteen separate air condition-ing zones. Recycled and recyclable materials were usedthroughout the construction process.

PhysicalThe landscaping incorporates native vegetation and

rainwater harvesting.

The Nature Conservancy Corporate OfficeA P P R O P R I A T E R E G I O N A L A R C H I T E C T U R E

A R C H I T E C T:The Architecture Company

S TAT U S :Completed in 2000

T Y P E :12,500-square-feet com-mercial office building(three floors)

1510 East Fort Lowell Road

©G

ill Ke

nny,

Cou

rtesy

The

Arc

hite

ctur

e C

ompa

ny

©G

ill Ke

nny,

Cou

rtesy

The

Arc

hite

ctur

e C

ompa

ny

– 35 –

EconomicThe project cost $1.2 million—approximately $96 per

square foot—which is in line with comparable projects.

IssuesWhile the alternative paving system GravelPave2 is

found throughout the country, this was the first time it wasused in Tucson. At the time, it was not acceptable underTucson’s land use code. Even though the system wouldexceed the city’s requirements for stormwater retention, itrequired a considerable amount of time to educate citystaff about its benefits. The Board of Adjustment eventuallyunanimously approved its installation and may incorporatethis type of paving into its land use codes.

Lessons LearnedGravelPave2 is performing as anticipated. There has

been some gravel migration and compacting due to thesettling of the material, but more gravel has been added tomake up for this problem. The building and constructioncommunity has provided positive feedback on this alterna-tive pavement material. The city is flexible where alterna-tive building materials are concerned and would considermodifying its code to include GravelPave2 as acceptable,but as yet has made no formal efforts to do so.

©G

ill Ke

nny,

Cou

rtesy

The

Arc

hite

ctur

e C

ompa

ny

– 36 –

The two large brick warehouses on the east and westcorners of Sixth Avenue and Sixth Street, originally built inthe 1930s, provided storage for goods distributed via thenearby railroad. In October 1999, the surrounding areaknown as the “warehouse district” was listed on theNational Register of Historic Places because of its historicrole as a center of local commerce and industry, andbecause of the presence of a number of Sonoran-styleadobe structures dating back to the first half of the twentieth century.

The proximity of 6th & 6th to Fourth Avenue, thedowntown area, and the arts district make it a particularlyattractive neighborhood for younger people and progres-sive entrepreneurs and their clients. The current ownerswere inspired by urban redevelopment efforts in the PacificNorthwest and decided to try to replicate that success inTucson. The two warehouses have been under renovationfor three years. They are already home to art galleries, anadvertising agency, a computer business, a tile company,and artists’ studios.

Historical/CulturalThe warehouses’ exterior facade received a thorough

cleaning to highlight the masonry construction and steel-framed windows. As with most warehouse renovations,most of the refurbishing focused on interior spaces in order to comply with contemporary building codes.

SocialThe current owners received a $30,000 low-interest

loan from the Downtown Arts District for renovationexpenses. In exchange, the owners agreed to provide studio spaces as part of the renovation.

These contemporary-use warehouses have enhancedthe area’s social appeal.

FunctionalRecycled crushed concrete pieces were used as pavers

between parking areas and at unit entrances.

6th &6th WarehousesU R B A N R E D E V E L O P M E N T & A D A P T I V E R E U S E

D E V E L O P E R :Firestone Buildings, LLC

S TAT U S :Renovation began in 1998

T Y P E :Commercial warehouses(13,000 and 21,000square feet) with 18 lease spaces

Sixth Street and Sixth Avenue

©Jo

sh S

chac

hter

/Son

oran

Inst

itute

©Jo

sh S

chac

hter

/Son

oran

Inst

itute

– 37 –

PhysicalPrior to initiating the renovation process, the previous

owners of this warehouse secured an EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) Brownfields grant to identify on-site sources of pollution. (The buildings had at onepoint housed an auto parts store and a tire store.) Thegrant was approved and cleanup completed in advance of the purchase by the current owners.

EconomicThe current owners assumed responsibility for all

maintenance and still manage to maintain reasonablerents. (In other nearby complexes, rents are lower, but tenants are responsible for building maintenance.) Thisarrangement ensures proper upkeep of the buildings. The warehouses’ affordability and maintenance enhancetheir appeal in the market for small commercial spaces inand around the downtown area. Since 1998, almost allavailable spaces have been under lease.

IssuesThe “warehouse district” is part of an overlay-zoning

district (I-1/custodial-use zoning) that can be approved bythe city planning director through a streamlined adminis-trative process as an incentive to redevelop. The overlaydistrict also limits the need to acquire certain variances forparking, use, and density. The previous owner’s Brownfieldsgrant increased the later marketability of the building with-in the overlay district.

Lessons LearnedThe overlay district does allow for the combination of

artists’ living and working spaces. However, in cases whereartists’ work (metallurgy, for example) may not complywith zoning regulations, conflicts may arise between theunderlying zoning, which is light industrial, and that of the overlay district.

©Jo

sh S

chac

hter

/Son

oran

Inst

itute

– 38 –

Posadas Sentinel, formerly known as Hope VI–BarrioSanta Rosa/Connie Chambers Revitalization Plan, is anambitious community revitalization plan that will providelow-income housing and support services to families in thegreater Barrio Santa Rosa neighborhood, located north ofTwenty-Second Street between Interstate 10 and SouthSixth Avenue. A hallmark of this project is the conversion of the Connie Chambers public housing project into a 120-unit, mixed-income neighborhood, and the additionalconstruction of affordable rental housing in higher-incomeneighborhoods, which is to be made available to families in the Connie Chambers project.

This initiative breaks from traditional public housingprojects that segregate families in need of assistance fromthe broader community. The emphasis on integratinghousing, social services, and other community improve-ments reflects a long-term commitment to communityrevitalization in our core urban areas and some of our most neglected neighborhoods.

Historical/CulturalThe initial proposal for Posadas Sentinel sought to

include various design features that would promote astronger sense of community. Some of these features were eventually dropped from the project because theyconflicted with the city’s existing building and land development codes. Others required special review andapproval as a part of the development review process. (See “Issues” for a discussion of how these goals weremodified to meet code requirements.)

SocialNew community facilities developed under Posadas

Sentinel will address the residents’ education, job training,

Posadas SentinelU R B A N R E D E V E L O P M E N T & A D A P T I V E R E U S E

A R C H I T E C T:Poster Frost Associates, Inc.

D E V E L O P E R :City of Tucson CommunityServices Department

S TAT U S :Design and construction1998–2001

T Y P E :Public-private partnershipproviding affordable housing on lots totaling320 acres

Greater Barrio Santa Rosa Neighborhood

©Jo

sh S

chac

hter

/Son

oran

Inst

itute

©Jo

sh S

chac

hter

/Son

oran

Inst

itute

– 39 –

business development, health, child care, and recreationneeds. The breadth of social service programs is designedto ensure the integration of families into the community. In addition to revitalizing housing, the plan includes con-struction of a new community center and park, a super-market, a multi-service child care center, and numerousinfrastructure improvements.

FunctionalAll new buildings are expected to meet specific energy

efficiency standards that are well above the UniformBuilding Code (UBC) standards to which the city adheres.

PhysicalReclaimed water will be used to irrigate onsite land-

scaping. This required that every unit include a backflowpreventor that ensures reclaimed water does not contami-nate drinking water. The city’s water department agreed topay for these devices and track the use of reclaimed anddrinking water over time.

EconomicPosadas Sentinel’s improvements, expected to total

more than $48 million over the next few years, are consid-ered a long-term community investment. The project is a public-private partnership involving federal and local governments and the not-for-profit community. (Fundingsources include federal Hope VI funds, City of Tucson’sCommunity Development Block Grants, Pima CountyCommunity Services, and Angel Charity.) It will be privately

managed through a community nonprofit corporation thatwill administer the project and ensure its implementation.

IssuesThe project designers intended to include narrow

streets with raised-landscape medians. This original designconcept was altered by the city’s minimum street widthstandards for emergency vehicle access.

In order to create the feeling of a single-family devel-opment with multi-family units, the project designershoped to provide duplex and triplex homeowners withindividual trash receptacles and on-street parking. The cityultimately required large dumpsters for trash removal, but allowed on-street parking. The project designers alsohoped to set homes closer to the street. Parking lanes areincluded in calculating how far homes must be set backfrom moving traffic, so by including on-street parking,designers were able to achieve the desired result.

The city had initially determined that the projectwould have to pay for backflow preventors to ensure thatreclaimed water used for irrigation would not contaminatedrinking water. By agreeing to pay for these units’ installa-tion in all homes, the city kept the project from adding$600–700 to the cost of each residence.

Lessons LearnedThe city’s attempt to create an innovative project was

constrained by local development codes and UniformBuilding Codes (UBC), which affected the project’s abilityto meet several design objectives.

©Jo

sh S

chac

hter

/Son

oran

Inst

itute

– 40 –

Built in 1928, the Coronado Hotel, located near theFourth Avenue underpass on Ninth Street, is one of the lastremaining hotels built around Tucson’s downtown railroadstation. It was listed on the National Register of HistoricPlaces in 1982. It is located in a neighborhood that is a mix of old residences and commercial shopping.

With renovation completed in 1991, the building wasconverted into subsidized single-room occupancy units forlow-income residents. There are forty-one efficiency apart-ments for older adults and disabled adults who are capableof living independently. The project has helped meet theneeds of some of our most vulnerable populations whilealso ensuring that our downtown areas remain vital, livableneighborhoods.

Coronado HotelU R B A N R E D E V E L O P M E N T & A D A P T I V E R E U S E

D E V E L O P E R :Downtown DevelopmentCorporation

A R C H I T E C T:CDG Architects

S TAT U S :Renovation completed in1991

T Y P E :16,659 square feet historicrenovation and adaptivereuse

402 East Ninth Street

©Jo

sh S

chac

hter

/Son

oran

Inst

itute

Cou

rtesy

CD

G A

rchi

tect

s, LT

D

– 41 –

Historical/CulturalThe architect worked closely with the Arizona State

Parks Historic Preservation Office to follow the Departmentof Interior’s regulations for historic preservation. The build-ing received the Governor’s Award for Historic Preservationand a certificate of recognition from the Tucson-PimaCounty Historical Commission for its preservation efforts.

SocialThe single-room occupancy (SRO) units provide

housing for local special needs populations, such as thosewith handicaps and mental illness, as well as recoveringalcoholics, battered women, and elderly people on fixedincomes.

FunctionalEvery precaution was taken to ensure that building

materials were regionally appropriate and historically rele-vant. The renovation complies with the Americans withDisabilities Act.

PhysicalN/A.

EconomicThe City of Tucson contributed various grants for the

$1.3-million renovation, and also provides rental subsidiesfor residents. The complex financing plan included HistoricRehabilitation Investment tax credits, Low Income Housingtax credits, and Section 8 Mod-Rehab certificates.

IssuesNo significant issues were raised during the develop-

ment review process.

Lessons LearnedBecause of their low rents, SRO projects do not yield

profits for building owners. Assistance from local governingbodies and private nonprofit organizations throughHousing and Urban Development (HUD) grants is thereforeessential to make SRO projects a reality. HUD’s SRO pro-gram also provides Section 8 rental assistance payments tolandlords who provide rehabilitated residential units tohomeless people.

©G

ordo

n Si

mm

ons/

Sono

ran

Inst

itute

– 42 –

Armory Park del Sol is a sustainable infill communitysituated on a previously vacant parcel of land. The projectwill consist of affordably priced detached homes, rangingin size from 800 to 1,671 square feet, which will be setclose to the street and feature exterior facades that matchneighboring historic residences. Close proximity to Tucson’sdowntown will allow residents to walk to jobs, shops, andrestaurants.

Armory Park del Sol will incorporate innovative energysaving and water conservation technologies. Each homewill use solar technology to generate electricity and to heatboth household water and the home itself. In addition, the development will feature Tucson Electric Power’s (TEP)Guarantee Program for new construction, where TEP calculates annual heating and cooling costs and refundshomeowners’ expenses that exceed their estimate.

Former Tucson mayor George Miller and the city council approved the project because its location neardowntown met their goal of creating a more livable innercity. The project represents a cooperative venture betweenthe developer, John Wesley Miller Company, TEP, and itssister company, Global Solar.

Historical/CulturalSpecific architectural features of the 1890s (pre–World

War II territorial architecture) will make homes consistentwith residential structures found in the historic district.

SocialThe project’s scale and overall design is compatible

with the adjacent neighborhood. Narrow streets, frontporches, extensive walkways, and driveways accessedthrough back alleys will help create an intimate feeling thatencourages interaction among new and long-time residents.

FunctionalArmory Park de Sol is a “demonstration site” for a

national private/public initiative (PATH, or Partnership forAdvancing Technology in Housing), which encourages use

Armory Park del SolI N F I L L D E V E L O P M E N T

D E V E L O P E R :John Wesley MillerCompany

C O L L A B O R AT O R S :Tucson Electric PowerGlobal Solar

S TAT U S :Construction is ongoing

T Y P E :99 single-family residentialsubdivision on 14 acres

East Sixteenth Street & South Third Avenue (Armory Park Historic District)

©Jo

sh S

chac

hter

/Son

oran

Inst

itute

– 43 –

of innovative sustainable technologies, including those thatconserve water and rely on solar energy. Solar collectors are expected to reduce the amount of electricity used perhouse by 75 percent. Homeowners will rely on conven-tional power during off-peak hours, further reducing their utility bills. Reclaimed water will be piped in and used inpublicly landscaped areas for drip irrigation.

PhysicalThis project will incorporate drought-tolerant native

plants, thereby decreasing water use, while sustainablehigh-density urban infill development techniques will pre-serve open spaces. The community’s extensive walkwayswill encourage pedestrian traffic, reducing the negativeeffect of vehicle emissions on the environment.

EconomicHomes will be priced in a range consistent with the

neighborhood’s current land and home values. Because ofthe homes’ energy-saving features, heating and coolingcosts are expected to be as low as $1.10 per day—lessthan $35 per month—so homeowners will be eligible for“green” mortgages, which take into account future energysavings as part of the financing process.

IssuesThe developer has had over one hundred public

meetings—from the conceptual stage on—to discuss howto integrate the project into the historic neighborhood,address concerns about the project’s design and density,

and foster support. The project has had an inquiry list ofover 125 people for some time, indicating a strong interestamong potential homebuyers.

Lessons LearnedAdjacent neighborhood approvals can be obtained

when appropriate processes and design decisions involvethe adjacent communities early on and continuously.

Home prices in this development are appropriate tothe historic neighborhood character and reflect involve-ment with existing neighborhoods and awareness of adjacent land use.

©Jo

sh S

chac

hter

/Son

oran

Inst

itute

– 44 –

The intent of the Meyer Avenue Project was to extendthe Mexican village ambience of neighboring Barrio Viejo.Using a previously vacant site, the developer has built various rammed-earth houses, including a duplex, twotriplexes, and one adobe guesthouse, as well as single-family homes. Although designed for individual clients, the layout of the homes and their close proximity to oneanother help ensure that these multiple households constitute an interactive community.

Homes in this project embrace the Mexican custom of small, contained outdoor spaces. Houses are designedwith patios or courtyards that encourage outdoor activitiesduring mild weather. Some homeowners have chosenbright exterior colors that reflect the barrio tradition andfurther enhance the neighborhood’s appeal.

Historical/CulturalBarrio Viejo has not been designated a historic

neighborhood, but its homes do have a defined character.Layout and construction of the Meyer Avenue Project areconsistent with the feel of the barrio neighborhood.

SocialMinimal setbacks, front porches, and off-street

garages help create opportunities for interaction among new and long-time residents. A balance of family residences and rental apartments also encouragesdiversity in lifestyles and income groups living within the neighborhood.

Meyer Avenue ProjectI N F I L L D E V E L O P M E N T

A R C H I T E C T / B U I L D E R :Rammed EarthDevelopment

S TAT U S : Ongoing (begun in 1989)

T Y P E : 15-plus, single-family resi-dential

Meyer Avenue between Eighteenth and Nineteenth Streets

©Jo

sh S

chac

hter

/Son

oran

Inst

itute

– 45 –

FunctionalBuildings are oriented to take advantage of passive

solar heating. Rammed-earth and adobe walls, metal roofs,and high-performance insulating windows keep indoortemperatures comfortable and ensure that homes are energy efficient.

PhysicalN/A.

EconomicHome prices are comparable to those of neighboring

homes. Energy bills are expected to be about a third ofthose for standard frame and stucco homes of similar size.

IssuesThe city required homes to be set back twenty feet

from the street, the conventional approach for suburban-style development. The developer sought minimal setbacksconsistent with the layout of Barrio Viejo. Because a differ-ent client had purchased each lot, each building was con-sidered a separate project. Variances had to be obtained ona case-by-case basis, which lengthened the process by upto six weeks per house despite the fact that variancesrequested for each client were often the same.

Lessons LearnedThe lot-by-lot variance process is costly. There needs to

be a way to consolidate variances.

©Jo

sh S

chac

hter

/Son

oran

Inst

itute

– 46 –

The Presidio is inspired by the style of the traditionalPresidio del Tucson dwellings. The original 1776 Presidiowas used by Spanish soldiers to protect settlers and travel-ers from the dangers of frontier life. Walls surrounded thesettlement, which included closely-built colorful homes,small gardens, and a chapel, plaza, and store at the centerof the community.

The new project, built on one of the more sizablevacant lots within the city, achieves a high level of densitywithout compromising homeowners’ privacy. Colorful one-and two-story homes, varying in size from 1,167 to 1,812square feet, are clustered around common courtyards orindividual driveways. A distinctive wall defines the commu-nity, with the traditional presidio’s central plaza replaced byan elegant pool and gathering area. Residents and visitorsenter the development through a gate. Historical/Cultural

The Presidio is adjacent to neighboring development,which includes the Williams Center (a retail and office complex), a Barnes & Noble superstore, and conventionalsuburban homes.

SocialStrong design elements including narrow streets,

clustered homes, and a community pool were incorporatedfor onsite community interaction. While The Presidio is agated community, gates are closed only at night.

The PresidioI N F I L L D E V E L O P M E N T

D E V E L O P E R / B U I L D E R :Doucette Homes, Inc.

A R C H I T E C T:KTGY Group

S TAT U S :Platted June 1996; phasedconstruction completed inNovember 1999

T Y P E :153-unit, single-familyhomes; gated communityon 15.8 acres

Williams Center, Sixteenth Street and Rosemont Boulevard

©G

ordo

n Si

mm

ons/

Sono

ran

Inst

itute

– 47 –

FunctionalPatio walls and common landscaping areas, as well

as strategically placed windows, are designed to ensure privacy. Homes meet Tucson Electric Power’s “Good Sense”energy efficiency standards.

PhysicalBefore The Presidio was built, the site was barren

except for native creosote bushes. The developer added all-native vegetation for landscaping and buffering.

EconomicThe project cost approximately $21 million. Three

years ago, home prices ranged from $110,000 into the$140,000s. Homes currently run $120,000–165,000. The project is completely built out, indicating a strongmarket for this type of housing.

IssuesThe developer was able to site homes at just under ten

units per acre, well above the density for typical develop-ment throughout the city. As a result, the project requireda number of variances for street development standards(fire lane, postal delivery, and trash pickup), as well as set-back requirements. While these were eventually resolved tothe satisfaction of the city and the developer, variances andadministrative relief were granted on a lot-by-lot basis,which lengthened the development approval process andultimately increased the cost of development.

Lessons LearnedThe development review process required individual

negotiations with staff from different departments. Theinconsistencies in this process created a great deal of uncertainty about the project’s final outcome.

It can be difficult for infill developments to incorporatebroader community values, and to provide opportunitiesfor social interaction with adjacent pre-existing neighbor-hoods. Public meetings and a developer’s availability toadjacent neighborhood residents are essential for achievingcommunity consensus.

©Ro

bb M

iller

– 48 –

Founders and community members of SonoraCohousing intend to strike a balance between promoting a shared sense of community and respecting individual privacy. Built on a vacant lot in the midtown area, the project includes ten clustered residential buildings contain-ing thirty-six attached homes.

The residential buildings surround a large commonhouse. Pedestrian pathways link all areas of the site, includ-ing the parking lots on the periphery. Other common areasinclude a swimming pool and spa, play areas, a workshop,an organic garden and orchard, and placitas that serve assmall gathering areas.

Other single-family residential homes and apartmentdwellings surround the site, which is located on RogerRoad west of First Avenue. This location is convenient tomajor bus lines and services, and is in an area good forbicycling.

Historical/CulturalThe development integrated into the existing neigh-

borhood seamlessly. Sonora Cohousing sent informationalflyers and invitations to adjacent residents and businessesto educate the public about the project‘s concept.Representatives from Sonora Cohousing answered neighbors’ questions at weekly open houses.

SocialCohousing neighborhoods are designed to create a

community where everyone knows each other. SonoranCohousing’s pedestrian focus, its involvement of the resi-dents in the design and management of the neighbor-hood, and its extensive common facilities help foster thatsense of community. Planned and spontaneous activities

Sonora CohousingI N F I L L D E V E L O P M E N T

D E V E L O P E R : Wonderland HillDevelopment

S TAT U S :Anticipated completion in spring 2001

T Y P E :36 multi-attached, single-family residential cohousing community on 4.7 acres

501 Roger Road

©G

ordo

n Si

mm

ons/

Sono

ran

Inst

itute

– 49 –

such as games and picnics are encouraged in the commonareas. The midtown location provides convenient access topublic transit.

FunctionalMetal roofs, high-performance insulating windows,

and cellulose insulation keep indoor temperatures com-fortable and ensure that homes are energy efficient. These features should reduce energy costs by as much as 30 percent. Builders made efforts to reduce the use oftoxic materials in the construction process. Poor planningon adjacent properties required that Sonora Cohousingretain all rainwater onsite to prevent flooding of the surrounding area.

PhysicalProfessionally designed landscaping uses desert and

low water-use plants. The site was previously a chickenfarm, with limited native vegetation.

EconomicAs a cohousing project, Sonoran Cohousing was

required to have 75 percent of the homes sold beforeobtaining financing. Through strong marketing, all homes(ranging in price from $100,00 to $230,000) were soldprior to completing construction. The project cost approximately $5 million.

IssuesThe entire development process took approximately

seven years. Site selection occurred only a few years intothe process, in part because Tucson infill properties of thissize are limited.

The project’s use of alternative building materials andthe community-building elements contributed to minorpermitting and plan approval problems.

Lessons LearnedIn cohousing, people are looking for something differ-

ent from the traditional single-family residential environ-ment. There is a market for this type of development.

Future roadblocks to creating this type of developmentcould be eliminated with the creation of an intermediategovernment entity that is responsible for interpreting regulations and modernizing codes to emphasize new and alternative building techniques. Such an entity couldalso be an information resource for building professionalsand clients wishing to pursue innovative projects.

Tucson has many innovative building and land-useresources to draw on. However, it can be difficult to find accurate and timely information about the cost ofalternative materials, and can make it hard to use them,particularly in a cost-constrained, production-orienteddevelopment.

©Jo

sh S

chac

hter

/Son

oran

Inst

itute

– 50 –

North Mountain Park is adjacent to the Rillito RiverLinear Park, approximately three miles north of theUniversity of Arizona, on a lot that had been used as a local dumpsite. The project’s seventeen homes are builtaround two oversized cul-de-sacs with central islands.

The project provides homebuyers with the best ofboth worlds: a combination of urban amenities (shopping,downtown, the university, and schools are close by) andrural amenities (the adjacent linear river park with unfet-tered mountain views). The project’s architectural stylemixes traditional barrio features with high-pitched metalroofs. Homes are designed with vibrant exterior colors chosen by each homeowner.

Historical/CulturalNorth Mountain Park’s architectural style borrows from

the barrio tradition: stucco construction with the appear-ance of adobe, front porches, and a compact, clustereddesign.

North Mountain ParkI N F I L L D E V E L O P M E N T

D E V E L O P E R / B U I L D E R :Contravest Properties, Inc.

A R C H I T E C T:Robinette Architects, Inc.

S TAT U S :Completed fall 1999

T Y P E :17 single-family residences;gated community on 5 acres

Mountain Avenue and Prospect Road

©Jo

sh S

chac

hter

/Son

oran

Inst

itute

– 51 –

SocialMost homes have active side yards instead of back

yards, which encourages social interaction. Bike paths canbe found nearby both on Mountain Avenue and along theRillito River. The development is a gated community.

FunctionalSome homes have open floor plans with exposed

beams and/or ductwork, contributing to a spacious interior.Porch overhangs and strategic window placement provideshade and help keep indoor temperatures comfortable.

PhysicalAs part of the development approval process, the

developer dedicated an easement along the MountainAvenue Wash to the City of Tucson, providing pedestrianand bicycle access to the Rillito park.

EconomicHomes are priced in the low- to mid-$200,000s, mak-

ing these relatively expensive homes in an area with low-to-moderate prices. While the development industry wasskeptical about the demand for higher-priced homes in this area, houses sold out in less than a year.

IssuesThe city had originally requested a sixteen-foot ease-

ment for bicycle and pedestrian access to the Rillito as acondition of use and approval of permits, but eventuallysettled with the developer for a twelve-foot easement.

Lessons LearnedThere is a viable market demand for this type of infill

residential development, which appeals to those in thehigher income bracket desiring to live in an urban area.

©Jo

sh S

chac

hter

/Son

oran

Inst

itute

©Jo

sh S

chac

hter

/Son

oran

Inst

itute

Civano incorporates elements of a traditional urbanneighborhood into a large-scale development project—thefirst such development in Tucson, and the largest master-planned community currently under construction in theUnited States that requires compliance with ambitious stan-dards for energy and water conservation, waste and travelreduction, job creation, and affordability. Civano integrateshomes with local shopping, offices, a school, and a confer-ence center, along with parks and natural open space,which are vital to the enjoyment and relaxation of residents.

Over the next decade, Civano will build 2,600 homesfor more than 6,000 residents and provide one millionsquare feet of commercial and industrial space. Four neighborhood centers are planned to serve the entire community, each of which will include gathering placessuch as coffee shops and small commercial enterprises.Most will be within walking distance.

Civano includes a wide range of architectural stylesthat draw from southern Arizona’s diverse building tradi-tion. Construction will emphasize energy efficiency andwater conservation. Homes are clustered together alongnarrow streets with alleyways providing access to garages.With cars parked in back, and front porches luring peopleoutdoors, residents are likely to have greater contact withtheir neighbors and feel a part of a larger community.

Historical/CulturalCivano has many historic architectural adaptations,

usually with environmental as well as social benefits. Forexample, front porches with roofs both shade homes andinvite social interaction.

SocialCivano has set a goal of creating one job for every two

houses built. By facilitating walking and biking, integratingshops and commercial spaces, and creating permanentemployment within the development, the project hopes to reduce auto travel onsite by 40 percent.

CivanoM I X E D U S E

D E V E L O P E R : The Community of Civano, LLC

B U I L D E R S :T.J. Bednar HomesDoucette Homes, Inc.Contravest Properties, Inc.Richmond American HomesSolar Built

A R C H I T E C T S & P L A N N E R S :

Community DesignAssociatesMoule-PolyzoidesRoss SutherlandDesign Build Consultants

L A N D S C A P E D E S I G N E R S :

Steve MartinoCivano NurseryMcGann Associates

S TAT U S :Platted in early 1990s; ongoing phased construction

T Y P E :Mixed-use, neo-traditionalplanned community on 1,140 acres

5301 South Houghton

©Jo

sh S

chac

hter

/Son

oran

Inst

itute

– 52 –

– 53 –

FunctionalThe project has numerous environmental performance

requirements for its construction. It hopes to achieve a 65percent reduction in energy use by relying on energy-effi-cient building materials, including RASTRA, straw-bale,recycled steel, and foam. Every home includes solar waterheating and is wired to accept photovoltaics. Civano willstrive for a 54 percent reduction in potable water demandthrough the use of reclaimed water for irrigation, and a 30percent reduction in solid waste generated by recyclingconstruction and household waste.

PhysicalThirty-five percent of the development will be pre-

served as open space, a portion of which will be used forparks and the pedestrian pathways and bike trails that linkhomes to neighborhood centers.

EconomicThe project estimates that 20 percent of the homes

sold will be affordable housing (under $120,000) or moderate-income housing ($120,000–150,000).

IssuesThe City of Tucson spent $3 million on initial infra-

structure investments, which it hopes to recoup throughrevenues generated by the development, and through thesavings made by avoiding new infrastructure costs in thearea in the future. Any future assessment of Civano’s success must determine whether the actual return justified

this level of investment. It also remains to be seen whetherthe market will allow for similar development projects inthe future without similar public investments.

Existing building codes sometimes conflict withCivano’s environmental performance goals. For example,flood control and water drainage regulations often hin-dered the siting of homes to take advantage of passivesolar heating. These building codes should be revised toprovide greater flexibility with an emphasis on outcomesrather than on specific requirements in meeting environ-mental standards. Also, issues of street widths and emer-gency vehicle access created delays and forced redesigns.

Lessons LearnedThis project’s true success is in question, given market

interest, percent of sales per phase, and whether the proj-ect is on track for expected sales. However, Civano remainsa valuable case study as Tucson’s first “New Urbanist”development project.

©Jo

sh S

chac

hter

/Son

oran

Inst

itute

©Jo

sh S

chac

hter

/Son

oran

Inst

itute

– 54 –

The homes that grace University Boulevard west of themain gate of the University of Arizona convey the formeraffluence of this historic neighborhood. In the early part ofthe twentieth century, this tree-lined residential street wasflanked by beautiful homes and dotted with small shopsconveniently accessed by an electric trolley. The area expe-rienced a decline after World War II. By the 1980s, many ofthe graceful old homes were gone, and remaining struc-tures needed substantial repair or demolition.

In the 1990s, a group of investors joined with the uni-versity and a local foundation to initiate Main Gate Center,a major redevelopment effort several blocks long, extend-ing from Fifth Street north to First and from Park Avenuewest to Euclid. The one-square-block from Euclid Streeteast to Tyndall and Second Street south to UniversityBoulevard is almost completely redeveloped, with thrivingretail businesses, the university’s administrative offices, anda new high-rise Marriott Hotel at the core. This stretch ofUniversity Boulevard has been developed to accommodatepedestrian and bicycle traffic, as well as the vintage electrictrolley service connecting Main Gate Center to restaurantsand shops along Fourth Avenue and downtown.

Historical/CulturalThe vintage electric trolley car service uses the

central lanes on Fourth Avenue and University Boulevard,providing service from the Coronado Hotel to the MainGate area. A volunteer organization, Old Pueblo Trolley,restores and maintains the historic electric streetcars. Thenew commercial/entertainment district is composed ofbuildings that reflect the architecture, scale, and ambienceof past centuries.

SocialDeveloping Main Gate Center involved significant

coordination with city, university, and neighborhood

Main Gate CenterM I X E D U S E

D E V E L O P E R S :J.L. Investments, Ltd.Marshall Foundation

S TAT U S :Begun in 1994; ongoing

T Y P E :Mixed-use, high-densityredevelopment over a four-block area

800 Block of East University Boulevard

©Jo

sh S

chac

hter

/Son

oran

Inst

itute

– 55 –

groups. The end result provides for a vibrant street life,attracting visitors and people from all over town. TheUniversity Boulevard streetscape design has preserved the attractiveness of the neighborhood, enhancing thesocial scene.

FunctionalUniversity Boulevard’s streetscape, which includes

broad sidewalks, crosswalks, and an experimental back-instreet parking design, helps create a relaxed atmospherefor shopping and dining. The innovative on-street parkinghelps keep traffic slow-moving and creates a safer area for bicyclists.

PhysicalN/A.

EconomicMain Gate Center is a partnership of J.L. Investments,

the University of Arizona, and the Marshall Foundation. J.L.Investments is the developer, responsible for managing theproject and securing tenants. The university is a lead ten-ant. The foundation, which owns the land, is responsiblefor providing project funding. When completed, the project will cost upwards of $70 million.

IssuesThe city’s current development codes and regulations

pertain primarily to suburban development projects. Thesecodes are not specifically designed to accommodate urbaninfill or redevelopment projects. A variance was required in

each instance where the developer sought to duplicateexisting building structures that predate current codes and regulations.

Lessons LearnedHigher density is appropriate for certain areas of the

urban/village core. The mixed-use concept can be utilizedin many areas of the city, such as the corridors of Fifth andSixth Streets and Stone Avenue.

Large-scale redevelopment can help contribute to the resurgence of declining neighborhoods. Future infilldevelopment projects can look to Main Gate Center as a quality project.

©Jo

sh S

chac

hter

/Son

oran

Inst

itute

– 56 –

Located on the southwest corner of BroadwayBoulevard and Fifth Avenue, the two-story Julian DrewComplex was built originally in 1917 with commercialspace on the ground floor and a hotel on the second floor.At one time it housed Tucson’s first indoor auto showroom.At the time of renovation in 1994, the hotel was no longerin use, and much of the commercial space, including anadjoining warehouse space to the south, was vacant.

Today the building has been completely renovated,with a newly reinforced structural system. An architect’sstudio, an art gallery, and other small businesses occupythe commercial spaces on the ground floor, and low-income apartments occupy the upper level. The remainderof the warehouse has been divided into fourteen spaces ofvarying sizes that are used primarily as artists’ studios.

A parking area, screened with a rammed-earth sculptedwall, fills the space between the Julian Drew building andthe adjacent warehouse structure. During evenings andweekends, various Broadway Boulevard community groups,including the Tucson Arts District Partnership, transform thisspace with open-air activities. Owners of the Julian DrewComplex not only have restored one of Tucson’s historicdowntown structures, but also look to restore downtownalliances and public events by encouraging a range ofactivities onsite.

Historical/CulturalThe Julian Drew building formerly housed the old

Lewis Hotel, and some of its old fixtures, including thelobby electrical box and working above-door transoms,were saved. Its traditional territorial architecture with red-brick facade (common to turn-of-the-century westernmercantile buildings) dominates the corner of BroadwayBoulevard and Fifth Avenue, contributing to a unique historic downtown environment.

SocialJulian Drew Complex management has shown an

interest in the maintenance of surrounding buildings andstructures by painting their facades and organizing anannual rotating mural project that is displayed on neigh-boring buildings. The parking area of the complex is usedduring “Downtown Saturday Nights” for fine arts markets

Julian Drew ComplexM I X E D U S E

A R C H I T E C T:Bill MuellerBill Taylor

B U I L D E R / A G E N C Y:Business DevelopmentFinance Corporation(BDFC)

S TAT U S :Renovation completed in1994 (original constructionin 1917)

T Y P E :18,000-square-foot ware-house, subdivided into11 apartments, 14 warehouse spaces, and 4 commercial spaces

186 East Broadway Boulevard

©Jo

sh S

chac

hter

/Son

oran

Inst

itute

– 57 –

and musical events. The complex is also home to severalyouth projects, including Second Chance, an assistanceprogram for at-risk high school students.

FunctionalThe parking area’s rammed-earth sculpted wall not

only encloses the space, buffering it from BroadwayBoulevard, but also enhances the streetscape with its nativemesquite trees, which provide shade and complement thesurrounding landscaping.

PhysicalN/A.

EconomicThe Julian Drew Complex was funded partially through

a federal grant from the Department of Housing and UrbanDevelopment’s (HUD’s) HOME program, which financesaffordable housing projects. The program requires thatfunded projects remain as affordable housing for a mini-mum of ten years. The Business Development FinanceCorporation (BDFC), a nonprofit group that assists smallbusinesses with financing, also secured funding for the reno-vation. BDFC initially worked with the Tucson Arts Coalition,which developed the original concept for this project.

IssuesThe Mayor’s “Back to Basics Program” recently

awarded BDFC $40,000 for streetscape development along Arizona Avenue between the Julian Drew Complexand Congress Street.

Lessons LearnedThis building was financially infeasible for rehabilitation

until the Uniform Rehabilitation Building Code was adopt-ed. The use of the interior rooms violated previous conser-vative codes and thus made renovation impossible.

This project owes its success to its creative financing,efforts to maintain the main structure and the structuressurrounding it, and the coalitions formed to increase thedowntown’s open-air activities.

While the Tucson Arts Coalition developed the initialconcept and the BDFC assisted in the financing of the project, partnering with the city for HUD financing wascritical for completion.

©Jo

sh S

chac

hter

/Son

oran

Inst

itute

©Jo

sh S

chac

hter

/Son

oran

Inst

itute

©Jo

sh S

chac

hter

/Son

oran

Inst

itute

– 59 –

It is worth noting the “Lessons Learned” that appearedmore than once in our case studies, as they helped us craftthe policy recommendations that follow. They include thefollowing:

• There is clearly a market for projects that deviatefrom conventional suburban-style development.However, the extent of that demand has not beenquantified.

• Developers benefit from working with adjacentneighborhoods and landowners in the conceptualiza-tion and design of proposed projects. Local supportfacilitates the development review and approvalprocess.

• Building and land-use codes should be more respon-sive to the needs of the community. This requiresthat all parties understand the health and safety stan-dards established by these codes and how innovativedevelopment projects would meet or exceed thesestandards. Incentives and flexibility would encourageinnovation.

• Local agencies should staff development serviceswith specialists in green building systems and thebiological sciences in order to enhance their ability to review and approve innovative projects.

As the amount of available land for developmentdecreases, there will be increasing pressure to make moreefficient use of land that is developable and to build in amore environmentally sensitive fashion. Redevelopment,infill development, and mixed-use development willbecome more viable options. Furthermore, as growthextends beyond the Tucson basin, it will affect a largernumber of local jurisdictions. There will be a need for more regional planning among jurisdictions.

We must anticipate the opportunities and challengesthat lie ahead and prepare for both. Currently, we aregrowing without a clear roadmap for the future, during a period when our population is expected to increase by 50 percent or more within twenty years. Our policy recommendations provide some initial steps toward creating that roadmap.

What We Learned“I don’t think we can understate

the general difficulties of the

development review process,

the inconsistencies of regulations

and departmental missions. It’s

essential that these conflicts be

brought to light and addressed.”

Tom Doucette

©Ba

lfour

Wal

ker

– 61 –

Policy ConsiderationsTucson’s public debate over land use has focused

primarily on the impact of development, and has typically arisen in reaction to proposals for new development. As mentioned previously, we rarelyframe discussions of land use in terms of how futuredevelopment could reflect our aspirations as a prosperous, livable, and beautiful city.

To a great extent, the tenor of public debate is aproduct of our land-use policy. The public is tradition-ally brought into the review and approval process too late for an effective outcome, frustrating local resi-dents, generating uncertainty and additional expensesfor developers, and creating a political minefield forelected officials and local planners. The end result isthe lowest common denominator, rather than a reflection of our highest aspirations.The most frequent concern heard from landowners,

developers, builders, and others interviewed for the casestudies in this report is that current land-use policies arelargely designed to promote one type of development—suburban. Projects that attempt to respond to a broaderrange of local values must still submit to the same reviewand approval criteria. As a result, those projects that deviatefrom suburban development, such as Milagro, face addi-tional costs and delays that can jeopardize their success.

Posadas Sentinel and other case studies highlight concerns about specific land-use codes that constrainedinnovation. A number of community-enhancing features—for example, narrower streets and setbacks—were deemedto be in conflict with health and safety considerations,while newer water harvesting, paving, and heating/coolingsystems consistently ran afoul of current building codes.However, as we have noted, exceptions are made on acase-by-case basis if the landowner’s proposal achieves orexceeds existing health and safety standards. Our challengeis to determine how these exceptions can become the rulefor future development.

In the process of preparing this report, many issuesarising from local land-use policies—ranging from compre-hensive regional planning to specific building codes—wereraised and energetically debated. While the advisory teamwas prepared to put forward specific recommendations forchanging individual ordinances and regulations, it conclud-ed that a more profound change was necessary to dramati-cally improve the quality of development in the Tucsonbasin.

Simply put: There needs to be greater attention givento the civic quality of new development—specifically, theextent to which land-use policy reflects and contributes to local values.

Civ

ic Q

uali

ty o

f D

EV

EL

OP

ME

NT

©Jo

sh S

chac

hter

/Son

oran

Inst

itute

– 62 –

1. LOCAL JURISDICTIONS must define a vision forfuture development that reflects and contributes to abroad set of community values.

As Pima County and local municipalities revise theircomprehensive plans (as required under recent statelegislation), they should provide greater guidance on what future development should look like. Each jurisdiction should identify the type of developmentthey wish to encourage (infill, mixed-use, environmen-tally sensitive, etc.), identify areas where these types ofdevelopment will be promoted, and establish policiesthat explicitly support them.

2. LAND-USE POLICIES must provide landowners withgreater flexibility in developing their property as long as they meet specific performance criteria (“standards”) for development.

Based on development priorities outlined in therevised comprehensive plans, land-use policies shouldinclude a set of clear and consistent performance standards for preferred types of development, includingbut not limited to:

• Infill development• Redevelopment and adaptive reuse• Mixed-use development• Open space development

At the same time, some performance standardsshould apply to all development, and as such should beencouraged and rewarded across our entire community.

These include specific, measurable green-building performance standards related to, but not limited to:

• Water usage• Energy usage• Solid-waste generation• Light pollution• Air pollution

They also include community-enhancing performance standards related to, but not limited to:

• Appropriate regional architecture• Housing affordability• Alternative transportation• Protection of views• Protection of open space

For this approach to work, there must be incentivesto encourage landowners to pursue preferred types of development, as Pima County has done in itsConservation Subdivision Ordinance. These incentivesshould include but not be limited to:

• Density bonuses• Eligibility for public financing, funding,

and assistance• Waivers for impact fees

This approach also will benefit from a streamlineddevelopment review and approval process. Collapsingordinances, as Pima County is attempting to do with itsproposed Environmentally Sensitive Land Ordinance, isan important step forward. Other key improvementsmay result from:

©Jo

sh S

chac

hter

“Regulations are essential to set a

minimum standard for development;

however, regulations don’t bring out

the best in new development. That

requires incentives in the development

review process, as well as a desire

by developers and financial

institutions to do it right.”

Luther Propst

– 63 –

• Early and frequent involvement of the public indelineating neighborhood values, choosing amongalternative project designs, and participating in themodification and final approval of projects

• Greater coordination between land-use policydevelopment, code updates, and the review andapproval process

• Where possible, consolidation of zoning districts orplanning areas

• More effective use of development agreements asplanning tools

• Additional planning staff for local jurisdictions• Additional training opportunities for planning staff

3. LOCAL JURISDICTIONS must work together to ensure that everyone benefits from high-quality development.

A key challenge in “raising the bar” for local devel-opment is that one jurisdiction’s improvements can sim-ply shift lower quality development to other jurisdictionsif they do not follow suit. It is also important to recog-nize that many of the impacts of growth and develop-ment—such as transportation planning, water policy, orendangered species protection—cut across jurisdictionalboundaries and require collaborative solutions.

Collaborative planning should reflect the following:• Consistency among jurisdictions in the develop-

ment of land-use regulations and building codes• Formal commitments among local jurisdictions in

realizing specific regional planning goals

• Measurable indicators and benchmarks for alljurisdictions to assess progress in realizing regional planning goals

• A statewide planning framework that providesgreater financial and technical assistance to local jurisdictions

....................................................................................

“What it takes to get by” is often the level of creativityand innovation fostered through our traditional land-usepolicies. Beyond minimum levels of performance, the current land-use framework provides few inducements or rewards for excellent design and high-quality develop-ment. Land-use policies that provide incentives and flexibility in realizing specific performance standards canhelp realize a higher level of quality in local development.

©Jo

sh S

chac

hter

“We need regulations that respond to

particular places and recognize the

possibility of good news—that if

done in a deeply integrated and

caring way, development can enhance

and even help restore and regenerate

damaged places.”

David Eisenberg

©Jo

sh S

chac

hter

/Son

oran

Inst

itute

– 65 –

ConclusionsBuilding from the Best of Tucson initiates a process

for further discussion about the future of developmentin our community. We will follow the release of thisreport with broader public outreach to invite ideas andsuggestions on how we can realize a higher standardfor development.

Too often, debate in our community over development has been divided by class, neighbor-hood, heritage, or economic interest. Issues related to environmental quality have been separated fromissues pertaining to social equity and economic viabili-ty. These concerns must be addressed hand in hand.Only through honest debate and the consideration ofdiverse perspectives can we build upon rather than

polarize our community, effectively addressing the issueswe have struggled with for decades. If local residents recognize the legitimacy of various interests in how ourcommunity develops, then we may experience a successfulshift in development.

This is a timely and necessary discussion. We have witnessed local government leadership constructivelyaddressing the impacts of growth. A wide range of community leaders are willing to craft solutions thataddress our economic, environmental, and social needs.We commend these leaders and challenge everyone inter-ested to help create a more livable, more environmentallyand economically sustainable, more inclusive, and moreprosperous community.

Futu

re o

f D

EV

EL

OP

ME

NT

“We need to shift our thinking

about building and development

regulations away from the focus

on trying to prevent the wrong

things from happening to trying

to facilitate and ensure that the

right things do.”

David Eisenberg

– 67 –

Glossary of TermsAffordable Housing—Newly constructed or rehabilitatedresidences that can be purchased or rented at an annualcost that does not exceed 29 percent of the gross annualincome of a person who earns 115 percent or less of thecounty median income.

Attached Units or Attached Housing—Two or moredwelling units sharing an outside wall (for example, townhouses, cluster homes, stacked flats).

Brownfields—Abandoned, idled, or underused industrialand commercial facilities where expansion or redevelop-ment is complicated by real or perceived environmentalcontamination.

Building Envelope—The area within a lot that may bebuilt upon or otherwise disturbed during construction.

Cluster Development or Cluster Housing—Developmentthat concentrates buildings within a small area of a proper-ty, with the remainder of the property often maintained asopen space. Cluster housing can be used to reduce thevisual and environmental impact of development.

Cohousing—Residences that combine the privacy of single-family dwelling units with extensive common facilities such as kitchens, dining rooms, children’s play-rooms, and/or laundry facilities, thus enhancing a sense of community. Residents often come together to identify a site and raise predevelopment funds, making the development process much different from the norm.

Comprehensive Plans—Long-range plans prepared by a local or regional government encompassing the entire jurisdiction and integrating all elements related to its physical development, such as housing, recreation,

open space, and economic development (sometimesreferred to as “general plans” or “master plans”).

Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)—A declaration filed by a developer that specifies his/herintended restrictions on what one can or cannot build on a property.

Conservation Easement—A legal agreement that alandowner makes to limit the type and amount of develop-ment on his or her property. Except in special instances,these restrictions are attached to the land and transfer tosubsequent property owners in perpetuity. Conservationeasements may be gifted or sold to appropriate private orpublic agencies.

Density—The degree to which buildings are concentratedin a particular area. Often expressed as a ratio (e.g., sixdwelling units per acre).

Detached Home—A freestanding dwelling unit, normallysingle-family, situated on its own lot.

Development Review—The process of reviewing specificdevelopment proposals in the context of local land-use andbuilding codes, zoning and subdivision regulations, andcomprehensive plans, culminating in issuing or withholdinga building permit.

Drip Irrigation—An above-ground, low-pressure wateringsystem that releases small, steady amounts of water to individual plants.

Energy Efficiency—The process of minimizing the use ofenergy for space cooling, heating, and lighting, and watercooling and heating. Energy efficiency is measured in

– 68 –

“energy ratings” that provide information on the degreeto which a feature, product, or device requires energy toperform its function.

Gated Community—Developments enclosed by remote-controlled gates, walls, or fences; predominantly built andmaintained privately.

Green Building—A holistic approach to building that seeksto reduce energy consumption and minimize the environ-mental impact of constructing buildings and maintainingthem throughout their entire life.

Impact Fees—Fees levied on developers by local govern-ments to pay for the cost of providing the infrastructurethat the development requires.

Infrastructure—Services and facilities provided by a municipality or private entity, including roads, highways,water, sewage, emergency services, schools, parks, recreation facilities, and so forth.

Native Plants or Native Vegetation—Plants or vegetation that occur naturally within a given location(e.g., saguaro cactus).

Passive Solar Heating—Generally refers to features in thedesign and construction of buildings that absorb the sun’snatural thermal energy, usually through radiation, conduc-tion, and natural convection. (With active solar heating,collectors absorb heat from the sun, which is then trans-ferred by pumps or fans to a building or to a storage unit for later use.)

Permaculture—A holistic approach to community development—with a long-standing emphasis on food production and land stewardship—that stresses the

ecological connections between human activities and the natural environment.

Rammed-Earth—A building technique for exterior walls where earth is “rammed” (or pressed down) betweenforms. Certain mixtures of moistened earth that are used in this technique harden under pressure and form a strongsolid wall that is then covered by a coat of waterproofingmaterial.

RASTRA—A material made from recycled plastics andcement that offers the structural strength of concrete withhigh insulation, soundproofing, and fire protection values.

Reclaimed Water—Wastewater that is given a high degree of treatment, resulting in high-quality water thatcan then be reused beneficially. Reclaimed water is deliv-ered to homes and businesses through an undergrounddistribution system entirely separate from the drinkingwater system.

Setback(s)—The part of zoning regulations that prohibitbuilding within a specified distance from the propertyfrontline or edge of the public street; thus, the structuremust be set back a given number of feet from the frontline.

Single-Family—An adjective used for dwellings, eitherattached or detached, that are designed for use by onefamily. Single-family residences or housing units do notshare heating facilities or other utilities with any otherdwellings, and each has direct access to a street.

Straw-Bale—A building technique for exterior walls where straw bales (not hay) are stacked, reinforced, and interlocked, forming thick, highly insulated walls.

Sustainable—The ability to meet current residents’

– 69 –

needs without compromising possibilities for meeting future generations’ needs. This implies that the actions we take to meet our basic needs—food, shelter, clothing,etc.—must not jeopardize the natural systems that supportall life. Understanding the nature of the interdependence of the human and natural environment is paramount tounderstanding sustainability.

Variance—Permission to depart from the literal require-ments of a zoning ordinance.

Wastewater—Water that is discharged from homes andbusinesses from sinks, toilets, washers, showers, etc. It istreated through a series of separation and aeration processes.

Water Harvesting—The rain that falls on a roof or yardand is channeled by gutters or channels to a storage tank.The first wash of water on a roof is usually discarded andthe subsequent rainfall is captured for use if the system isbeing used for potable water. Good quality water is thenavailable by this method.

Xeriscape Landscaping or Xeriscaping—The use ofdrought-tolerant plants instead of water-thirsty grasses to create a visually attractive landscape. Xeriscapingreduces outdoor water use by 30–80 percent and requiresless maintenance than traditional turf landscaping.

Zoning—Dividing a municipality into districts and establishing regulations governing use, placement, spacing, and size of land and buildings.

– 71 –

BibliographyArizona Solar Center. Website: www.azsolarcenter.com.City of Tucson, Livable Tucson Vision Program.

Website: www.ci.tucson.az.us/livable2.html.Eisenberg, David and Bob Fowler. 2000. “An Alternative

Future for Building Regulation.” Building Standards,January/February: 17–23.

Ewing, Reid. 1996. Best Development Practices. Chicago:Planners Press, American Planning Association.

Growing Smarter Commission. 1999. Growing Smarter:Managing Arizona’s Growth and Preserving OurHeritage (Final Report).

Herberger Center for Design Excellence and the School ofPlanning and Landscape Architecture. 1995. Findingsof the North Sonoran Land Use Character Charrette.Phoenix: Arizona State University.

Iowa, Jerome. 1985. Ageless Adobe: History and Preservationin Southwestern Architecture. Santa Fe: Sunstone Press.

Katz, Peter. 1994. The New Urbanism: Toward anArchitecture of Community. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Kelly, Eric Damian, and Barbara Becker. 2000. CommunityPlanning: An Introduction to the Comprehensive Plan.Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Kunstler, James, 1996. Home from Nowhere. New York:Simon and Schuster.

Pijawka, K. David and Kim Shetter. 1995. The EnvironmentComes Home: Arizona Public Service’s EnvironmentalShowcase Home. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Pima County. 2000/Preliminary. Sonoran DesertConservation Plan.

Planetizen, an online resource for planning: www.planetizen.com.

Planning Commissioners Journal. Website: www.plannersweb.com.

Roseland, Mark. 1998. Toward Sustainable Communities:Resources for Citizens and Their Governments. StonyCreek, CT: New Society Publishers.

Schachter, Josh, Jan Gingold, John Shepard, and Mary Vint.1998. The Economic Benefits of Integrating NaturalOpen Space into Land Development. Tucson: RinconInstitute.

Scottsdale, Arizona’s Greenbuilding Program. Website:www.ci.scottsdale.az.us/greenbuilding.

Steiner, Frederick, Laurel McSherry, Dean Brennan, MarkSoden, Joe Yarchin, Douglas Green, James M.McCarthy, Catherine Spellman, John Jennings, andKirsten Barre. 1999. “Concepts for AlternativeSuburban Planning in the Northern Phoenix Area.”Journal of the American Planning Association 65:207–222.

St. John, Andrew, ed. 1992. The Sourcebook for SustainableDesign: A Guide to Environmentally Responsible BuildingMaterials and Processes. Boston: Boston Society ofArchitects.

Sustainable Design: A Planbook for Sonoran Desert Dwellings.1999. Tucson: Tucson Institute for SustainableCommunities.

Tucson Innovative Home Tour: Sourcebook. 1997, 1998,and 1999. Tucson: Toward a Sustainable Tucson.

– 72 –

Tucson-Pima County Energy Metropolitan Commission.Website: www.tucsonmec.org.

Urban Land Institute (ULI) and American Institute ofArchitects (AIA). 1984. The ULI/AIA Plan for Action:Preserving Tucson by Planning Its Future. Washington,D.C.: ULI and AIA.

Wilson, Alex, Jenifer L. Uncapher, Lisa McManigal, HunterLovins, Maureen Cureton, and William D. Browning

(Rocky Mountain Institute). 1998. Green Develop-ment: Integrating Ecology and Real Estate. New York:John Wiley and Sons.

Woolley, Tom, Sam Kimmins, Paul Harrison, and RobHarrison. 1997. Green Building Handbook. New York:E & FN Span.

SONORAN INSTITUTEBOARD OF DIRECTORS

Nancy Laney, ChairTucson, Arizona

Andy Gordon, Vice ChairPhoenix, Arizona

Fred Bosselman, SecretaryChicago, Illinois

Lollie Plank, TreasurerBanner, Wyoming

E. Walter Coward, Jr.Marietta, Georgia

Donald DiamondTucson, Arizona

Lorraine EilerGlendale, Arizona

Frank GreggTucson, Arizona

Susan HeynemanFishtail, Montana

Jake KittlePatagonia, Arizona

Darlene LavenderCalgary, Alberta, Canada

Gil LuskTucson, Arizona

Carlos NagelTucson, Arizona

Emily StevensWilson, Wyoming

Nan StockholmTucson, Arizona

Bill TravisBoulder, Colorado

Carlos Valdés Casillas, Ph.D.Guaymas, Sonora, Mexico

BOARD MEMBERS EMERITIMaría Elena Barajas

Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico

Ervin H. ZubeTucson, Arizona

DESIGNTheresa Reindl Bingham

The Sonoran Institute, founded in 1990, is a nonprofit organization that works with communities to conserve andrestore important natural landscapes in western North America, including the wildlife and cultural values of these lands.Through an innovative approach known as community stewardship, the Institute works collaboratively with local peopleand other interests to advance conservation, engaging diverse partners such as landowners, public land managers, local leaders, and nongovernmental organizations. The Sonoran Institute seeks lasting results through its work, including healthy landscapes and vibrant, livable communities that embrace conservation as an integral element of their economyand quality of life.

The Sonoran Institute maintains offices in Tucson, Arizona, and Bozeman, Montana.

7650 E. Broadway Boulevard, Suite 203 • Tucson, Arizona 85710 • Telephone: (520) 290-0828

201 S. Wallace Avenue • Bozeman, Montana 59715 • Telephone: (406) 587-7331

sonoran@sonoran.org • www.sonoran.org

If you live in or around Tucson, no doubt you can easily point torecent construction that you believe is not appropriate for our desertcommunity. While it’s not difficult to see what doesn’t work, it can behard to identify what does work. What sorts of developments satisfy ourcivic aspirations? Which buildings fit best in our desert environment?What construction projects best celebrate the cultures and histories thatmake our community unique?

By profiling residential and commercial developments that draw on the wealth of Tucson’s environment, history, and cultures while simultaneously striving to preserve those features, Building from the Bestof Tucson encourages public discussion that might begin to answer the above questions. Open its pages and get a glimpse of what developments are working best for Tucson and how Tucson mightencourage its future developments to further raise our quality of life.

Building from theBest of Tucson